Andrew Murrison: The NAO and the chief executive of the Dental Laboratories Association, Mr. Richard Daniels, whom I had the pleasure of meeting this morning, both fear that the new contract will give dentists a perverse incentive to abandon some costly dental work that they currently give to dental laboratories. Indeed, a dental technician from Oldham, where the new contract is being piloted, has written to say that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the work that he gets from NHS practices in his area has disappeared. Why is the Minister diverting money for high-quality crown, denture and orthodontic work from dental laboratories to dental practices? Is that the way to make an unpopular personal dental services contract more acceptable to dentists?

David Hinchliffe: Does the Minister recall that when he came before the Health Select Committee to discuss elder abuse, concern was expressed about the current arrangements for the certification of deaths in care homes and nursing homes, whereby a single doctor can certify a death without actually seeing the body? The Minister shared the Committee's concern about that practice. Have any steps been taken to deal with this issue?

Adrian Bailey: In my constituency of West Bromwich, West, the local primary care sector has had considerable success in recruiting foreign physicians' assistants. What steps are being taken to recruit, train and give accreditation to our own, home-grown physicians' assistants?

Lorna Fitzsimons: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the spectacular turnaround in the accident and emergency department of Rochdale infirmary? Is he aware that the basic ingredients for that turn round were already in place, although investment was gratefully received? In fact it was the team of clinicians—Don, David, Rip, Selim and Mark, who are the consultants, Ann Rhodes, who was the linchpin as manager and the nursing staff—that galvanised the whole hospital to work together. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that under "Agenda for Change" and with future investment, the key role of medical secretaries, medical record staff and their senior managers will be enhanced and appreciated, because without their pivotal role—

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	When I spoke a week ago yesterday in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I indicated that much of the Bill will be non-controversial and have the support of the whole House. We are dealing in the main, therefore, with issues of detail, clarification and, in some cases, interpretation. There will undoubtedly be party political differences about some aspects of the Bill, particularly in Committee, but on the whole people agree that we are right to set up the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and to underpin it with the changes in powers, thereby building on the reforms and modernisation that we have already put in place in relation to policing in this country and through the proposals in the police White Paper.
	We published "One Step Ahead" as part of the consultation process on the Bill and on the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. I remember that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, said a week ago yesterday that we were not always one step ahead in dealing with organised crime. He might be surprised to hear that I agree with him. There is a real problem in taking on the most sophisticated criminals in the world, who understand the tenets of capitalism a lot better than capitalists do. Their grasp of how to deal with a market internationally, how to change their methodology and how to use new techniques is breathtaking.
	Although the massive increase in police numbers, the reduction in crime and the creation of community support officers, which are referred to in the Bill, are critical in building the infrastructure—I notice that Bill Bratton, the former commissioner of New York and now of Los Angeles police, referred this morning on the "Today" programme to the critical importance of interlinking neighbourhood policing and tackling antisocial behaviour in building confidence and then helping with organised crime—the challenge of the decade is undoubtedly to get grips with cross-border international crime.
	All nations are considering the interrelationship between organised crime and terrorism and the relationship between trans-national travel and improved communication, by which I mean the use of satellite, the internet and mobile phones, as well as arrangements in terms of people's ease of communication when they travel. All of that has transformed, within the past few decades, the nature of criminality and the way in which people exploit the previous understanding of what was necessary.
	If the methodology and the sophistication of techniques have changed, we need to change rapidly with them. That will be the case year on year. There will have to be changes in the way in which the service operates, even as a combined entity, linking investigation, intelligence and its work with the prosecution services. Of course, there must also be the methodology of developing the technology that matches that of the organised criminals.
	Organised criminality costs our economy and commercial life at least £20 billion each year. Some £1.3 billion of that is the result of identity fraud alone, never mind the massive investment in hours that it takes to sort that out, not just in terms of policing and the criminal justice service, but of everyone else whose productivity and lives are affected by it.
	We have been getting better at getting to grips with that. In the 18 months to the end of 2003, which are the latest figures, we have disrupted and confiscated 11 tonnes of heroin and 26 tonnes of cocaine. The sophistication of the work with other countries to disrupt the supply of cocaine from Colombia and the work that is taking place in the Caribbean is impressive. Just three weeks ago, I was talking to Dominique de Villepin, the Interior Minister in France, about how we might step up that work by sharing resources and by sharing the task across the Caribbean with the Americans in the light of what is happening in central and south America and the West Indies.
	We have not been as successful in dealing with trafficking and organised criminality in terms of the poppy supply and heroin from Afghanistan, which is a primary concern for this country. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke yesterday about getting to grips with the problem. On the day that President Karzai is inaugurated, I think that we would want to work with a new democratic and strong Afghanistan in taking additional steps to ensure that we get to grips with what is literally a disabler and sometimes a killer on our streets.
	These days we have to think internationally about the way in which change takes place. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is on the Front Bench, because it emphasises the importance not only of tackling the causes of criminality and of putting in place preventive measures to give people alternative livelihoods but of clamping down on enforcement. Unless we do so, organised criminals will pay the subsistence farmers, whether in south America or Afghanistan, sums that they could never get by growing existing crops. Development aid, development of trade and tackling the causes of drug production are therefore critical.

David Blunkett: The Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency is to remain. As part of the protocol, the Serious Organised Crime Agency will have to work out its relationships with that agency and others to ensure that where overlaps occur there is a role for the Scottish Executive. I am happy to talk to Westminster Members of Parliament from Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), about any concerns that they have. It is important to get things right in what is inevitably a situation requiring co-operation and good will. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Executive for their co-operation on this matter.

David Blunkett: It is important that people are able to work together through mutual support. For instance, we shall work with the French through Project Reflex. Let me put it as gently as I can: if we can demonstrate that we can work well with the French, we must surely be able to work even better with our Scottish colleagues. There is already common ground through working arrangements that allow for cross-border mutual support. I have assurances from Sir Stephen and Bill Hughes that that will be a priority in making things happen on the ground. The director general will be in charge of the operational side.
	Clauses 31 to 34 deal with information sharing and the proper exchange of vital data. A year or two ago, there were problems in and between existing agencies. We must ensure that the Serious Organised Crime Agency is not subject to those problems. That is underpinned by recognising the importance of oversight, including by the Home Affairs Committee, of what is done in respect of data sharing and information. I wanted to put that on the record. Issues to do with gateways and information-sharing are critical to doing the job, but also raise in all our minds issues that we must address.
	Clauses 38 to 49 cover the conferment of the combination of powers held by the existing, separate offices that are to be brought together—as the shadow Home Secretary said—subject to the appropriate training and accreditation. Training and accreditation will be critical if people are to be able to take on the differing roles that have existed, from those in Customs to those of the constable, and will enable them to do the job, wherever they are and in whatever circumstances, much more effectively than has been possible in the past. The chairman and the director general of the new agency have been explicit in saying how crucial that will be and how vital it is that we reassure people about it. The Police Federation has expressed concern, so I want to reassure it that we are mindful of that and happy to continue the consultation.
	Clause 50 is about agency staff being subject to the scrutiny and appeal mechanisms of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. During the consultation on the White Paper, concern was expressed that there would be no scrutiny and appeals mechanism where things go wrong. We want to be explicit about those procedures. In Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman will take on that role.

David Blunkett: Yes, they will. If my hon. and learned Friend is lucky enough to be on the Committee—although I am not sure whether he would feel lucky to be there—we should value his contribution to getting this right.
	Clauses 65 to 68 are about what we colloquially call turning Queen's evidence, and will put a common law power on to a statutory footing. To give an example, similar powers are used in Australia in about 15 per cent. of convictions for drug trafficking, and in about a quarter of such convictions in the United States. In Britain, the figure is 1 per cent. There is therefore scope for us to look at this issue, with great care. I know that Members will want to examine in Committee how these provisions can operate without encouraging criminals to commit criminal acts to get themselves out of a spot. Obviously, we need to ensure that the proper powers are put in place to ensure that that does not happen.
	Clauses 69 to 73 are about financial reporting orders. These measures will close the absurd loophole in which people are able to return to organised crime after they have served their sentence and, in some cases, pick up the assets that they have stashed away so that they can continue to fund and invest in their criminality. As with supervising those coming out after long sentences in other ways, the power will now be available to supervise the use of the resources still held by those individuals, including their bank accounts and other financial holdings, so that we can monitor what they are doing and link it to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and any further activity can be dealt with and any resources obtained by criminal activity can be confiscated. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this should have been done a long time ago. The Assets Recovery Agency will be intrinsically involved, and we shall also be able to use the new powers to undertake monitoring.
	Clauses 74 to 86 are about witness protection. We need to put on a statutory footing provisions involving the duty to co-operate of agencies such as housing authorities, housing associations and education authorities—in terms of being able to place the children of families who have had to be rehoused, for example. Further provisions include measures to tackle the ridiculous situation involving the disclosure of names, addresses and whereabouts of witnesses, and to ensure that this is simply about witnesses and jurors, rather than about people who have been involved in criminality.
	Clauses 89 to 100 are about amending the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and about the faster disposal and execution of cases involving civil assets. These measures will get rid of a situation that we did not foresee—it has to be said—when the massive Proceeds of Crime Bill was going through Parliament. The situation arises when, if we have not released some of the assets that an individual had, we end up having to pay legal aid in order to be able to prosecute his or her case.

David Blunkett: It is absolutely crucial that PCSOs complement and work to support the neighbourhood beat teams. They are part of those teams. Where this has been shown to work best is precisely where we have a number of constables—often led by a sergeant—with the PCSOs as part of the team, undertaking the roles most appropriate to them. We can give that absolute reassurance.
	Part 4—clauses 116 to 128—is about the critical area of getting the balance right. If I have learnt anything over the past three and a half years—I like to think I have, although I hope I still have quite a lot to learn—it is that we must get the balance right. We must recognise that, where there are new threats, we need new forms of acceptable input to get acceptable behaviour. However, there also needs to be a balance in securing those powers.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, but is there not a genuine risk that the courts will misinterpret an attack on someone's religion as an attack on the person who holds that religion? There is a real problem here as people have deeply-held religious beliefs that some things, such as evil and some religions, should be hated.

David Blunkett: That is exactly what we are attempting to do. I can feel the differences of opinion that will exist in political parties in the House as well as between them. [Hon. Members: "This is cross-party."] That is what I have just said. I can hear the differences that exist within as well as between political parties.

David Blunkett: We can deal with satan worshippers quite easily through the law. What we would not want to do is to incite people to do something themselves against them—[Interruption.] This is about upholding the rule of law. It is about ensuring that where there are loopholes that exclude a particular group because they are faith group, as opposed to a nationality, they can be included. I do not want people going out inciting others against devil worshippers; I want to deal with the devil worshipping in whatever form it takes.
	It is probably best that we deal with the detail in Committee. [Hon. Members: "The devil is in the detail."] The devil is in the detail. Game, set and match.

John Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, I respect absolutely the Home Secretary's integrity and good motives in relation to this clause. What my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the former shadow Home Secretary, said on that subject is very sound indeed. We must be specific, however. Can I put it to the Home Secretary that were the offence narrowly defined in terms of incitement to hatred to practise violence, that would greatly assist matters? Narrowing down the matter in that way, which, periodically, sub-clauses of his sentences suggested, would aid us? If it is too broad and amorphous, however, it does not aid us at all.

David Blunkett: The difficulty with that is that we are talking about incitement to hate, which causes others to take the action. If the action taken were the issue, the other clause that we passed in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was about aggravation, would apply. It is incitement to taking the action that is the crucial issue.
	I did not answer the hon. Member for North Antrim on the issue of the gateway or lock, and I should have done. As a filter, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General will have a hand in determining the way in which this operates. Of course, we will test case law in the courts in any case, in relation to how it would operate, should the House pass the clause.
	I have tried to respond directly to questions rather than simply going through the Bill, but I now wish to return to clauses 116 to 118. They will enable us to deal with an important issue on which I think there is unanimity: animal rights extremists, or rather the protection of those going about their lawful business—including commercial business—under the very strict licensing that we have. As we have said before, the issue of economic sabotage is under discussion. I have lumbered my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with further meetings about it, which I am sure she has set in train.

Graham Allen: The clauses dealing with trespass and extending antisocial behaviour orders are welcome, but does either of them, or any other clause, constitute a peg for action to deal with something that concerns a great many members of all parties—the continuing difficulties caused by some travellers when they alight in our constituencies? Is there any possibility that that could be dealt with by means of amendment or further Government proposals during the Bill's progress?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable but very different view of drugs management from mine. He is a liberaliser, and he knows that I disagree with him, although I respect his view. I did not intend to dwell on this point, but the simple fact is that the British Government accepted responsibility for eradication of the drugs trade in Afghanistan, and having done so they should pursue that responsibility. However, I am told by American drug officers, among others, that last year, Afghan heroin flooded the British market and that this year, because of our lack of action, it is flooding the world market. That disastrous outcome is the result of the Government's taking responsibility but not carrying it through. If the hon. Gentleman believes in his argument, he should have made it to his own Government at the beginning of this process, so that somebody else could have taken responsibility for dealing with the problem.
	People trafficking was described yesterday by Sir Stephen Lander as a bigger problem even than drug smuggling. In truth, that has been apparent for at least five years. He admits that the UK is at or near the top of the list of targets for people smugglers, as it is for drug smugglers. We all know of the vicious criminal networks that people traffickers feed, using illegal immigrants in the drugs trade, the sex trade and many other illegal activities. The Home Secretary doubtless does not disagree with that, although he admits to not knowing how many people are in the country illegally. Any number of initiatives, new organisations and schemes can be concocted, but the most effective measures would surely be 24-hour, fully manned surveillance and embarkation controls.
	We are now told that SOCA will not be the British FBI that some feared, but as I pointed out to the Home Secretary during his speech, we are concerned about the rights and powers of those who will work for it. Civilians who work for it will be given police, Customs and immigration powers. Traditionally, Parliament has given police, Customs and immigration officers specific, often very intrusive, powers that are needed for their particular tasks. Now, they will all be under the direction of one man—the director-general—and in theory, under his control any agent can exercise any one of a wide range of powers.
	I was going to ask the Home Secretary what guidance will be given in that regard, but he elaborated on the issue somewhat in his speech and discussed the restrictions with respect to accreditation. However, I hope that, in winding up, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), will explain whether civilian agents will have the same training as a police, Customs and immigration officers combined. That would be a pretty onerous load, but such training is implicit in what the Home Secretary said.
	The Bill's provisions make the agency accountable to the Home Secretary, and in that regard my initial reading of the Bill was a little different from the Home Secretary's description in his speech. SOCA will be required to submit an annual report and will be inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. But given the agency's range of powers and its importance, would it not be wise to have specific arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny—I am thinking beyond just scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee, because in the first few years of SOCA's existence such a requirement will be fairly onerous—and to get Parliament to debate SOCA's work annually, at least for the first few years, so that we can see how this very important agency beds down?
	We are still concerned about whether the agency will lead to a skills loss in the national police force. We share the Police Federation's concerns that SOCA might be considered an elite unit that creams off all the best policemen. There are a large number of extremely dedicated and talented people in conventional policing, and portraying them as second class would damage police morale. We will look in detail at the way in which SOCA co-ordinates its work with the police—the Home Secretary has recognised the importance of that. In particular, we will look at the impact of the new agency on the autonomy of chief constables, which is vital to the independence of our police forces.
	The Home Secretary has previously pointed out in the House that organised crime plays an important role in feeding terrorism. I accept that the new agency does not have a specific role in relation to terrorism, but I should be grateful if, in her winding-up speech, the Under-Secretary provided more detail on its role. How, for example, will it work with the counter-terrorism agencies, which cover an enormous amount of the same ground? In connection with that, when the Home Secretary published the White Paper on SOCA earlier this year, there was much talk of changes to the intercept rules, which would make it possible to lift the ban on phone intercepts in court. That is as useful against organised crime as it is against terrorism. The House of Commons library notes that
	"a proposal to allow the use of intercept material is still under consideration. Ministers are expected to announce their conclusions on the findings of a Home Office review before the end of the year, which could make it possible to add new clauses".
	I told the Home Secretary that we would support the use of intercepts as long as there was proper scrutiny of the measure to ensure that steps are taken to protect innocent people from being convicted on intelligence that turns out to be wrong. However, I warn him that we will not tolerate the insertion of clauses that pose a fundamental challenge to civil liberties at the last minute and without scrutiny. That is an extremely important point.
	The Bill proposes an overhaul of police powers. It moves away from consent-based policing towards policing by discretion. Amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 extend powers to search premises to seize evidence. Section 8 of PACE is changed to introduce a new all-premises search warrant in addition to the existing search warrant for specific premises, thus allowing constables to search all premises "occupied or controlled" by the person named on the warrant. That it is worth while, as it will clearly help to solve problems faced by the police when dealing with criminals with multiple premises, but are the Government not concerned that the measures put a great deal of discretionary power in the hands of the police? The Bill outlines plans for civilian staff to be designated as staff custody officers for the purposes of PACE. Subject to the obvious practical concerns about training and supervision, some of which the Home Secretary dealt with in his speech, I support the proposal. We need more police on the streets and less paperwork, and I believe that it will help to achieve that.
	Moving on to measures to deal with illegal animal rights activism, the clauses themselves are not contested at all by the Conservative party. We welcome the fact that something is finally being done, even though it is a little late and is not enough. The Bill should include provisions to protect companies against a targeted campaign and to protect shareholders or names from publicity when a company is being targeted. We can make constructive proposals to tackle such problems. The legislation must be effective, and fighting against such offences requires determination, skill, and a proper range of powers. We believe that the provisions should be expanded, and we will table amendments to that effect.
	There are some parts of the Bill with which do not entirely agree or with which we disagree. We are concerned about the increased powers for community support officers—a group of people whose effectiveness has yet to be assessed. In his contribution to our debate on the Queen's Speech, the Home Secretary admitted that assessments of CSOs are still under way, both within and outside the Home Office. It may be premature to provide CSOs with more powers, as that may put them into situations for which they are not prepared. The chairman of the Police Federation said:
	"The role of CSOs must be fully clarified before a national roll-out, and there must be national standards for their training, which is commensurate with their responsibilities".
	I agree.
	We respect and support the concept of visible policing, but with more power comes more responsibility along with more duty which, and under this Government, means more paperwork, thus cutting the cost-effectiveness of CSOs—their primary attraction, it appears, to the Government so far. That "powers creep" is taking place at a time when forces such as Hampshire have turned down the extra CSOs ring-fenced for them. The chairman of Hampshire Police Authority said that
	"we want properly-trained warrant holding police officers . . . we do not feel that these individuals are value for money".
	Hampshire wanted the 13 police officers that that money would have provided. In Question Time last week—and I do not know whether the Home Secretary chastised him afterwards—the Prime Minister made an unusually interesting comment, when he said of policemen that
	"we shall continue supplanting them with community support officers."—[Official Report, 1 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 628.]
	That may have been a slip of the tongue, but it was certainly revealing. The public do not want policing on the cheap, which is precisely what the Bill is trying to encourage. They want fully trained police officers whom they can trust to cut crime.

David Davis: I am tempted to tell the hon. Gentleman that I will do so only if he comes with me to Hampshire, but I might be misunderstood. However, I told the Home Secretary that we need a full review, which will consider the sort of evidence that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I do not object to CSOs, as long as they are additional to the police—that is the point that I was making about the word "supplanting". [Interruption.] Well, they are not. In Hampshire, for example, there is a ring-fenced funding for CSOs, and the force will not get police officers instead. We must look at the way in which CSOs work and identify their strengths and weaknesses before delivering change. In the run-up to an election, the Government appear to be in a devil of a hurry to make a series of changes that do not appear to be based on fact but on their wish to be seen as tough crime, whatever the evidence of the past seven years.

David Davis: I am afraid not, as I want to turn to the most contentious part of the Bill. The measure is about 220 pages long, but I have serious difficulty with two pages—the rest, one way or another, we can broadly support. As the Home Secretary knows, the part on which we fundamentally disagree is the provisions dealing with incitement to religious hatred. I understand and have considerable sympathy with the Government's aims in trying to prevent religious hatred. I associate myself at the Dispatch Box with my predecessor's comments, which were quoted by the Home Secretary, about his noble aims.
	There is no dispute over the aims, but I sometimes wonder whether the Government understand the implications of their proposals. A simple change to previous legislation it may be, making it an offence to stir up religious hatred, but its impact will be profound, wide reaching and not necessarily that intended. Indeed, the effect may be the opposite of that intended, as I shall explain.
	For centuries the United Kingdom has had a tradition of religious tolerance, and at the same time a tradition of extremely robust religious disputation. That has produced a healthy society in which religious freedom and free speech have coexisted to the advantage of all. These joint freedoms have contributed in no small measure to the intellectual vigour of our society over those same centuries. They spawned the creativity that fostered a wealth of talent in many areas, from science to satire. Freedom of speech is one of the great virtues and simultaneously one of the great strengths of our society. The danger is that the Bill will curb that freedom of speech without any benefit being realised from the legislation.
	The Bill curbs freedom of speech where free speech is entirely appropriate. Unlike race, religion is a matter of choice—choice of beliefs, values, practices and behaviour. It is quite proper that such things should be debated and contested, and the proposed curb is almost entirely unnecessary. Words intended to provoke violence or cause alarm, distress or harassment are all caught by existing laws. The Bill would sacrifice freedom of speech for little or no gain. The drafting is so ill defined that it is not even clear what is meant by religion. The provision is drafted so widely that any sect or cult could be covered by it.
	Religion and race should not be put in the same category. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Attorney- General, commented to the Home Secretary earlier, what if an individual made remarks about a sect, cult or religion such as Satanism, attacking it for cruelty or deviance? Will such groups have a case against the individual? They would, so far as I can tell, under the Bill. The two examples cited in today's written ministerial statement would be covered by existing laws if they led to violence or harassment, so why do we need to introduce new provisions?
	I am sure the Home Secretary is aware that similar—not identical—legislation was introduced in Victoria, Australia. At present two Christian pastors are on trial for holding a seminar on Islam. The seminar was designed to educate Christians about the concept of jihad. Three Muslims came to the seminar and afterwards filed a complaint against the pastors, saying that the seminar vilified Muslims. People who initially supported the law in Australia have now realised its disastrous consequences. The Government may say that the Bill states that cases will have to be approved by the Attorney-General, but does the Home Secretary not understand that in the highly politicised environment in which the decision to prosecute will have been made, the impartiality of the Attorney-General will be undermined?
	There are many incalculable ramifications of the Bill. It might encourage hostile legal action between religions or even within a religion, between different sects. It might deter publication of controversial texts. It might even cause resentment against those whom it sets out to help. Worst of all, it starts from the wrong premise.

David Heath: That is absolutely right. For instance, familiarity with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies to England and Wales, would not be sufficient to allow an officer to operate in Scotland. Specific training needs to be given, and I hope that we will be able to explore that in Standing Committee.
	My final point in respect of SOCA has to do with accountability. We have already touched on that to a certain extent, but I was glad to hear that the agency will fall within the remit of the Home Affairs Select Committee. That important fact was not clear before today, but why has the Home Secretary taken the view that the new agency should have no service authority? Both NCIS and the NCS had one. In effect the right hon. Gentleman has taken on direct responsibility for the new body. Presumably, strong arguments were made in respect of why service authorities were required for the predecessor bodies, and I expect that similarly strong arguments have been made to explain why no such authority is needed now.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and that is another matter for exploration later.
	As for some other elements in this Bill, I do not take issue with the Government on the new proposals for disclosure. The Bill's extension of existing powers will clearly be of value, but I am worried about how they will be safeguarded to ensure safe trial. I shall return to that question later.
	As I understand it, the Bill puts on a statutory footing the current situation in respect of plea bargaining. I have no problem with that, although some reservations are inevitable when it comes to total immunity from prosecution, which is a major concession to make to a person. Will the fact that total immunity has been granted to a witness be made known to the jury that hears his or her evidence? It is possible that the granting of total immunity could affect the validity or credibility of the evidence that is provided.
	The Bill's provisions with regard to the national witness protection scheme are sensible and necessary, and I look forward to supporting them.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: To the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions, my answer is: incomprehensible; and to the second: yes.
	I turn to the third matter that I want briefly to deal with: the missed opportunity in the Bill in relation to plea-bargaining. What is contained in the Bill is not plea-bargaining; it enshrines what is already practice in the courts to provide either immunity or a diminution in sentence for those who turn Queen's evidence. That is not plea-bargaining, which has a specific, largely American, cognisance and is an absolute direct bargain between plea and sentence. That is anathema to our law, because in the past it has been felt that defendants have said that they were, at least, misled, sometimes grievously, by their lawyers, or by their lawyers in conjunction with prosecution lawyers or even with the judge, and that they entered pleas on a basis that they did not understand. The purpose of our law, which is anathema to plea-bargaining, is to protect the defendant.
	The same is not the case in offences of serious fraud. I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), about this matter, and hoped that we could take this opportunity to put into statute a provision to allow for plea-bargaining in offences of serious fraud. This may seem a tributary, but it is not, because we spend a great deal of courts' and jurors' time on it—far more than on anything else. Our arguments about inconvenience to jurors would largely be negated if we were to allow a simple amendment.
	Serious fraudsters do not require protection from their own lawyers; the reverse is more often the case. In those circumstances, there is no reason why for such offences, carefully regulated and tabulated direct plea-bargaining—a sentence known in advance in respect of a plea—could not properly be introduced in the Bill. Will the Minister give that matter her consideration? If necessary, rather than being sentenced to the honour of serving on the Committee, I should be delighted to discuss that perfectly reasonable, small but effective provision, which could be added to an otherwise admirable Bill.

Ian Paisley: When the apostle Peter instituted the Christian Church, he said in his great sermon:
	"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
	He declared a principle of Christianity: that salvation and everlasting life is vested solely and only in the Saviour. It has been rightly said in the House today that every religion must have a dogmatic objective; religions must say something confidently that they believe, and that, of course, rules out other beliefs.
	I am not accusing the Home Secretary of having something sinister in what he is doing. We all know him, and the time that I spent with him in his office was quite pleasant, as well as straight. I am not lining him up and saying that I believe that there is an ulterior motive. However, we must say that in the argument that we have heard in the House from him today, he seems to suggest that he can lean on the link between racism and hatred of people because of their race, and religious belief. That does not hold water in argument because, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has said already, religion is a matter of choice. If a person happens to be a Jew and becomes converted, he does not change his race, and still he is a Christian—but if a Christian becomes a Muslim, for instance, he ceases to be a Christian, because that is a matter of religion. That is a different issue from hatred because of race. What we have then is the interpretation, and I referred to that in my questions.
	People should read the Book of Common Prayer that lies on the Table, and with which the House opens in prayer every day. A man said to me the other day, "Parts of the Bible should be cut out because I don't like them." I said, "Yes, we may come to a day when we'll be back to pre-Reformation times, when people were burned because they believed in the whole Bible." So we are on very dangerous territory when we ask the Attorney-General to do more than all the cardinals of Rome can do, and interpret something in that way. His interpretation may lead to a prosecution, and the poor jurors will be called on to ground of which they may have no knowledge, and they will have to make their decision.I say to the House today that that needs to be very carefully considered indeed.
	Across the board, people may disagree vehemently with my religious beliefs, and people may disagree vehemently about my defence of what I believe is the very heart of the nation—the Christian family—yet those people will have the same problem with this matter. This is not a sectarian objection; this is something that takes in all religion and all peoples, and there is very serious worry. It is no use saying that people who say things in the pulpit will be exempt. According to the Bill, they will not be exempt. Even a preacher in his Sunday morning service—if he has a Sunday morning sermon; some preachers do not have that today—would be open to prosecution if he said something that would cause offence to a person in his congregation.
	Now that the Bill has come to the House, it is time to apply our minds to the fact that we cannot link such issues merely with hatred because of race. There have been cases, even here in this country, where people have been brought to court because of the placards that they held. One man held up a placard denouncing homosexuality, and he was brought to court, found guilty and fined very heavily. In all fairness I must add that Peter Tatchell, who would take an opposite view, said that it was ridiculous and shameful that a man of that character was taken to court, tried and found guilty. Such matters could be accelerated if we do not remedy this matter.
	I shall not detain the House because I have other duties elsewhere today, as hon. Members know, but I came to speak because I felt that, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party in this House, I must put up our marker on this matter.

Brian White: I do not normally speak on home affairs. Having grown up in Belfast, I shall avoid the subject that the person whose Church I went to as a child has just touched on. I want to concentrate on a number of other issues, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
	When SOCA is set up, the way in which its powers—whether customs powers, constabulary powers or immigration powers—are allocated is crucial, and a bureaucratic pre-allocation route will not be flexible enough to tackle some of the serious issues that the agency will face. One of the key things is that the agency's officers should have the ability to select powers appropriate to their task and to be accountable for those powers, rather than having a pre-allocation of powers, as is envisaged in the Bill. I hope that Minister will look again at that issue, because getting it right is crucial.
	Getting the culture of the organisation right at the beginning is very important. We have learned the lessons of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, under which we did not get such things right at the beginning. The relationships between SOCA and local constabularies and international forces are important, and we must get them right at the outset.
	For generations, the Home Office's immediate reaction to any problem has been a tendency to introduce legislation. Despite the universal welcome for the Bill, which contains a lot of good things, I fear that there is still a tendency in the Home Office to think that legislation is the only thing that matters. It is much more important to consider enforcement and the international co-operation that is required, both of which will determine whether SOCA is a success far more than the legislation itself.
	A number of technological changes are taking place that will have a direct impact on SOCA. Again, we must consider those aspects, which are not touched on in the Bill. Education also has a role to play. We often forget when passing Home Office legislation how to educate people about the aspects that we need to tackle, and how we can prevent serious organised crime.
	The Minister will be aware of the relevance of the proceeds of crime. I have tackled that issue with her in the past. If an agency seizes assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and central Government are the prosecuting authority, the Department involved is reimbursed for the cost of the prosecution. Counterfeiting and piracy are major problems in this country—they represent a lot of organised crime activity—and local government trading standards officers are often involved in those prosecutions.
	One prosecution for piracy and counterfeiting in Waltham Forest cost £90,000. When the court confiscated the assets of the people who were found guilty, but there was no money to pay for the local authority's prosecution costs. I urge Ministers to take on board an amendment that has been discussed with the Department of Trade and Industry to allow agencies outside the Government to have their prosecution costs reimbursed. As we are amending the Proceeds of Crime Act, there is an opportunity for the Government to deal with that issue.
	If SOCA is to work, its relationship with the private sector—particularly with banks, internet service providers and other companies—is critical. Again, the Bill is too traditional in its approach and does not use the private sector to tackle serious organised crime. I would advocate that the directors of security of our banks and internet service providers be made special constables, so that they have the powers to collect the evidence to present to the prosecution authorities. Ministers have heard that argument, but we should consider innovative ways to tackle some serious organised crime. I hope that when it is up and running, the agency tackles those issues, rather than simply continuing down the traditional route.
	It is vital that we have the resources and capacity to deal with international co-operation. One country recently gave a list of 500 paedophiles to us, but it overwhelmed the agencies that were supposed to deal with it because they did not have the capacity to cope. Having the right skills and the capacity to deal with such problems is important. I urge the Minister to consider not only how powers are allocated to SOCA, but the resources and training that will make it a success. If we do not have the skills or the resources both inside and outside the agency—that relates to linkages with other constabularies—we put it at a disadvantage.

Richard Shepherd: Not right now. I am beginning to address the very thought that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) set out.
	It has been rightly pointed out that this is a compendium Bill. It is a portmanteau. The Home Office can stick anything into it that it wants. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman wanted something else stuck in it. Heaven forbid!
	First, the Bill creates the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Secondly, it contains powers to compel people to co-operate with an investigation by producing documents and answering questions. Thirdly, it provides for defendants to plead guilty and offer Queen's evidence in return for a discounted sentence. Fourthly, it introduces changes to police powers contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and confers a number of new powers on the police. Fifthly, it extends the powers of community support staff and other police support staff. Sixthly, it provides for all criminal offences to be "arrestable offences", subject to a test of necessity. Seventhly, it provides for an offence of incitement to religious hatred. Eighthly, it creates a new offence of harassment of a person in his home. Ninthly, it create a new arrestable offence of trespass on sites designated by the Secretary of State. Tenthly, it gives the police new powers to control protests that hinder access to, or are disruptive of the workings of, Parliament, or which spoil the visual aspect of Parliament square.
	Eleventhly, it lifts the automatic reporting restrictions in youth courts in relation to proceedings for a breach of an antisocial behaviour order. Twelfthly, it extends the range of law enforcement agencies from whom non-conviction information may be obtained. Thirteenthly, it enables the criminal records bureau and its equivalent in Scotland to access passport, driving licence and national insurance number data in order to identify the identity of applicants for a criminal record disclosure.
	I have listed only some of the propositions in the Bill, but many of them have, I would suggest, very significant human rights implications. Indeed, they engage a wide range of human rights, including the right to liberty under article 5; the right to a fair trial and the privilege against self-incrimination under article 6(1); the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence under article 8; the right to freedom of religion and conscience under article 9; the right to freedom of expression under article 10; freedom of association under article 11; and the right to be free from discrimination in the enjoyment of convention rights under article 14. That is quite a little coup, striking at the very heart of the Government's own Home Office flagship legislation, the Human Rights Act.
	I do not know whether any Committee scrutinising the Bill or any judge who comes into contact with the Government's new proposals will find that they are in conflict with the range of rights that I mentioned. However, I would point out that this touches on something that is important to all of us—the balance between security and liberty, about which the Government are casual and careless.
	Many people's minds have been concentrated by the new offence—or the replay of an offence that the Home Office tried to slip into a previous Bill, but did not get away with—relating to incitement to religious hatred. I come from a background, in Scotland and England, in which freedom of expression was the ultimate way of finding our liberty. It provides the way in which we assault the conscience of others.
	James I of England, who was James VI of Scotland, said: "The business of state is mine; let no man meddle in it" and his authority for such a sweeping assertion was something called the divine right of kings. I might take exception to that concept, though I see that new Labour increasingly toys with it. Am I not assaulting a religious belief when I say that James I had no such divine right? What crime could I have committed under the Bill?— [Interruption.] It is a religious faith and belief. Having absolute power came from his belief and faith in the church. It may be an old argument about new Labour, but it knows nothing about the time before it was born. The struggle that I referred to was an expression of freedom, and it was a long march that enabled us to respect the premises on which our liberty was built.
	The Home Secretary has found it necessary to invoke a derogation from the Human Rights Act and the convention on human rights, asserting that the very life of this nation is threatened. It is something to which the House has acceded, and the consequence has been the diminution of traditional liberties and freedoms. That is the thread that runs through the present Home Secretary's administration of one of our great offices of state. I do not acquiesce easily to those propositions, but I notice that on the front of the Bill, the Home Secretary asserts:
	"In my view the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
	I do not think that he is right in that judgment and I am sure that he will be found not to be right. I would argue that the House should treat with great caution a Bill which the Home Secretary says should be debated in detail in Committee, when we have on the Order Paper, immediately after our present business, a programme motion that insists on the Bill's being returned from Committee on 25 January. Christmas lies between. Traditionally, at this stage of the Session, before a Bill goes into Committee we would barely have a Committee stage, if at all, before Christmas. We are looking at no more than four or five sittings for examining the Bill.

Vera Baird: It is clear that we need the Serious Organised Crime Agency that is established in the Bill, because we have not seen the reductions in harms caused by organised crime that we have seen in those caused by volume crime. The harms of organised crime that damage people most are those associated with people trafficking: charging people to be trafficked to what they think will be a new life, which in fact leads them to be sold into slavery—usually sexual slavery, irrespective of gender—to feed the amazing capacity of men to buy women and children and young men, even though they know that those people are ill treated and live in appalling circumstances.
	The second huge harm that befalls people from serious organised crime relates to drugs. I do not have to list the huge ramifications that that sort of crime has in our constituencies and the huge economic impact that it makes. I note that the aim of setting up SOCA, as explained in the White Paper "One Step Ahead", is rightly three-fold. First, it is to disrupt criminal activities, including by adding to their costs and seizing assets. Secondly and rightly, it is to increase the risk for criminals—the Mr. Bigs—who must be more successfully targeted, arrested and prosecuted. That explains the need for procedural and evidential changes. Thirdly, and also rightly, there is the intention to reduce the market, among other ways, by reducing demand.
	I can see how drugs education, treatments and initiatives can reduce demand for the massive importation of cocaine and heroin coming into this and pretty much every other western country on a weekly basis. Those initiatives must be supported, but have we not missed a trick when it comes to the question of people trafficking and disrupting the demand for it? Where are the measures to disrupt the desire for trafficked people? Where are the measures to reduce demand for ripe young people, who are sold off like fresh fruit to degenerates to be used for sex? Where are the measures to educate and treat those who behave in that way?
	Education and treatment may be the wrong words. Hon. Members might think that I support social engineering, but we must face the fact that a market exists in this country for young people. If the recipients of sexual favours from those young people thought about it, they would realise that those young people have been abused and enslaved and are still being used in a framework of fear and oppression, but they disregard that in the interests of a brief physical sensation. We are missing a trick if we do not start seriously to recognise that disrupting demand for trafficked people is an urgent need. It is time to understand, recognise and think through that urgent need and to work out ways in which we can try to disrupt that unequivocally evil demand.
	As the Home Secretary said—I agree with him—this is a practical Bill. I also agree with the White Paper that we should aim to make the UK one of the least attractive places in the world for organised crime. After we have implemented those measures, we must strengthen international co-operation to widen and disperse the measures that prove most effective.
	I hope and think that SOCA will work. I never understood why intelligence and investigation were run by two separate bodies, and I am pleased that such incomprehension was not solely my own. Even in their modern incarnations, each body had a separate service authority, administration, internal rules, operational remit and complaints system, and it seemed to me that that was pointless. One authority that unites some skills and that calls by secondment on other skills from related groups such as the police, Customs and forensic scientists should be effective on first principles. Its focus on serious and organised crime should make that body more than the sum of its parts.
	The concerns are easily and quickly listed, and I imagine that they are not profound. Accountability is still not 100 per cent. clear. Service authorities were attached to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, but the exact status of the board that will replace them is unclear. How will the new board compare and contrast with those service authorities?
	On resourcing, little new cash appears to be available for SOCA. I know that the intention is that SOCA should be self-financing quite early in its life, but that may create concerns, which need allaying, for local police forces. For instance, people who are seconded to SOCA will leave a gap, which local police forces must fill. Rather than being properly financed at the top, SOCA will impose a down-line cost on the police, perhaps putting at risk their capacity, especially if their leading staff are seconded. That point has been made before, because it is a real risk. In police terms, SOCA will be a glamorous new body for which people will want to work and to which people will want to be seconded. We must ensure that the built-in protections are there, so that local police forces are not denuded of their high-flying staff.
	The complaints route is not entirely clear. I saw the Home Secretary respond on that matter, but I did not follow 100 per cent. of his explanation. It seems that when somebody is designated to SOCA as a constable, a Customs officer or an immigration officer, they will be subject to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Vera Baird: In a way, that pleases me because the route is clear and the model is well tested—the IPCC has been good in the short time in which it has existed. However, the system is peculiar, because if somebody is seconded from Customs and Excise, where they were subject to their own complaints procedure, they will be subject to an entirely different procedure whose rules they did not know when they volunteered. The issue is not straightforward, but the Minister can see why I retain a little bit of residual concern about the complaints situation.
	The possibility of a two-tier work force is also a concern. In the grass roots in my constituency, I have heard it expressed that people will be seconded at their particular level, seniority and pay from both the police and civilian organisations such as Forensic Science Service, Customs and Excise and the immigration service. It is possible to imagine an operation in which two people from completely different backgrounds do the same job for a year on radically different pay and conditions, which, in due course, might interfere with the cohesion that is essential for that body. That is another concern that must be thrashed out.
	I shall quickly discuss two powers in the Bill relating to serious organised crime and two other police powers that concern me. We have heard a bit about disclosure notices, which have been taken from the model in the Serious Fraud Office. The model has been around since 1987 and works pretty well. However, it has a small compass of use and is used in few cases. The SFO is small, and it is governed by its lawyers, who are the only people who can use those notices. SOCA is a much bigger affair than the SFO ever has been or is ever likely to be, and it will deal with much higher levels of crime and much bigger gangs.
	The power in clause 56(3) worries me. It allows an "appropriate person" to have the power delegated to them to use a disclosure notice. We all know that disclosure notices compel people to give evidence, not against themselves but against others, or to produce documents or other kinds of information. The power is strong, and it needs to be used in a sophisticated way. Although the caveat is that the power can be used only in exceptional circumstances, and following the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who will define those circumstances?
	Concerns exist about when such exceptional circumstances will occur, and, taking the SFO model, the power to use disclosure notices might be delegated to low-level people in SOCA. It will not be easy to control the use of those powers, because SOCA is much bigger. What would the remedy be if those powers were wrongly used, particularly granted that is an offence punishable by imprisonment not to obey the application of those powers?
	Mr. Heath: What is the hon. and learned Lady's view about maintaining a distinction between the SFO and the new agency in the first instance? When the Solicitor-General was questioned about that matter, she advanced the argument that because of the combined prosecution and investigatory role of the SFO, it must be a separate body. However, I was not entirely convinced and would welcome the hon. and learned Lady's view.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before my hon. and learned Friend moves on, I want to ask her about the sanction for not complying with a disclosure notice. She will have noticed that the defence to such a charge is that they have acted "wilfully". As she will know, that word causes more difficulty in criminal law than anything else. If she is on the Committee that steers the Bill through, as I am sure that she will be, will she contemplate at least attempting to amend it to the far more useful and reasonable term, "without reasonable excuse"?

Julian Brazier: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I echo her point about the omission of paedophile rings, and I will shortly return to another point that she made.
	I know from the many letters I receive from constituents that crime is the No. 1 fear. Violent crime and antisocial behaviour are in danger of becoming an epidemic, blighting the lives of numerous law-abiding, hard-working families throughout the country. The breakdown of law and order and respect for wider authority is arguably the most serious domestic problem in Britain today.
	In Kent we are blessed with one of the best police forces in the country—in my view, one of the best in the world—but I am sorry to say that the Government, with their plethora of crime Bills, have done little to turn the tide back. Despite unbelievable, unprecedented amounts of legislation, violent crime is rising. The horrifying recent incidents—three murders by burglars, of which we have read in the press in the last week or two—underpin the bleak statistics.
	Rather than dealing with the full scope of the Bill, I shall focus almost entirely on those who suffer terrible, degrading, inhuman treatment at the hands of international organised criminal gangs engaged in people smuggling. They have no voice. We are nowhere near winning the battle against drugs, and we now have a whole new war to fight. One of SOCA's most important roles must be to tackle the disgusting traffic in people—the vile trade in women and children.
	Estimates of the worldwide value of migrant smuggling and trafficking vary. According to Der Spiegel, the German secret service has estimated that revenue for international criminal gangs operating in Europe alone amounted to €5 billion a year, of which about two thirds was collected by Chinese criminal gangs, three or four years ago. Some organisations now estimate the total value of the trade to be anything up to €30 billion a year. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe believes that it has now replaced the drugs trade as the world's most profitable illegal industry. That is a truly staggering fact.
	The International Organisation for Migration has estimated that between 700,000 and 2 million women and children are trafficked across international borders each year. It observes that
	"in most countries there are few statistics on the scale of trafficking."
	Unfortunately, Britain is one of the most affected countries. The Home Office has no information on the number of women trafficked into the UK for the purpose of exploitation. Indeed, one official described the whole illegal immigrant population as a "knowledge black hole".
	At a Home Office seminar five years ago, workers in health projects estimated that, even back then, 50 per cent. of those employed in London's sex industry's so-called brothels were immigrants. A more recent investigation by the Metropolitan police found that 76 per cent. of Soho brothels were staffed by foreign prostitutes, with Albania and Lithuania being the most common sources. Every year, more than 6,000 children aged between 12 and 16 are smuggled into Europe to work as prostitutes. An estimated 80 per cent. of people trafficked from Albania are teenage girls under the age of 18, according to a report in The Guardian.
	Behind these grim statistics lie literally thousands of horrific individual cases. Typically, the victims describe how they are repeatedly raped until their resistance is completely broken. By the time that they reach this country, they are completely in the hands of their captors. Indeed, even if they do escape, they are in a foreign country. Frequently, they do not speak the language and have no idea to whom to turn. In many cases, the police in their country of origin are the very last people to whom they would go for help; they have no way of knowing that the situation here is very different.
	The Bill does contain some welcome measures—in particular, chapter 4 of part 2 puts witness protection on to a statutory footing—but it is very important to provide safe houses for victims who have only just escaped their tormentors. The Home Secretary gave me a fairly conciliatory answer earlier in this regard; however, the anti-slavery coalition and Amnesty International pointed out in a joint presentation in the House last week that there are very few safe houses in this country for such women, and that there are now no safe houses at all for children, the only two in existence having closed. It is vital that women, and particularly children, have safe places to go to, where they are beyond the reach of these remorseless criminal groups.
	Amnesty International and others have also called for medical care, counselling and other aid before deportation. I have been involved in the campaign concerning the treatment of child victims in this country—a campaign that has been run for the past 15 years. There has been a transformation in their treatment, but how much worse has the plight become of these young girls, who have been abused for months, and in some cases, for years? They know nothing about this country, yet they are receiving the same sort of treatment here. If we do not provide the resources to protect them and to encourage those who are brave enough to testify, the chances of penetrating the dark and murky underworld in which these rings operate is nil.
	When this Government came to power seven years ago, we were told that we would be treated to joined-up government. This Bill is trumpeted as an example, and we all welcome the bringing together of the various agencies. However, in other fields relating to crime and disorder, measures have been implemented that conflict directly with each other. The Government have a professed desire to tackle binge drinking; yet licensing legislation prevents local authorities from considering police intelligence on licence applicants' previous conduct. It also prevents them from taking into account serious, time-expired offences, and it creates a charter for previously illegal raves. At the same time, in the name of healthy living, the Government are waging war against smokers, fat people and anybody enjoying a Big Mac, while at the same time downgrading the classification of cannabis and presiding over an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases.
	Sadly, my concern today—people trafficking—is no exception in this regard. Please let me be clear: I do not buy the argument of those well-meaning non-governmental organisations that say that the vile trade of people trafficking can somehow be separated from wider immigration policy. That is complete nonsense. The organisations that specialise in people trafficking started out in the business of people smuggling, and their profits grew when they expanded into this vile new sector. Bringing successful prosecutions against people traffickers through the testimony of courageous witnesses will help to close down people smuggling and vice versa. If we make it harder for people smugglers to succeed, we will help to deter people traffickers.
	People trafficking is a symptom of the wider breakdown of immigration controls. A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in July 2000 on the trafficking and smuggling of refugees states that much of existing policy making by European Governments is
	"part of the problem and not the solution."
	A passage in a migration paper published by the widely respected Brussels-based "Migration News Sheet" sums up the position perfectly:
	"Through their severe short-sightedness and inclination to rush through emergency measures without reflecting on the consequences . . . EU states have helped to create the ingredients of a very lucrative form of international criminality which top Mafia bosses never even dreamed of, namely trafficking in human beings."
	Our borders and internal enforcement procedures are undermanned. The Triad and Snakehead groups that operate women's prostitution were behind the Morecambe bay disaster. As long ago as June of the previous year, the Home Office were warned about the exploitation of vulnerable migrants by ruthless gangmasters. The warning was noted, but ignored, as a clear decision was made to do nothing. In a letter to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), the Home Office said that the immigration service could not intervene because of "resource issues". It said that
	"little useful purpose would have been served by sending officers to assist."
	What were immigration officers doing that could have served a greater purpose?
	The lack of specific anti-trafficking legislation to deal with perpetrators has often resulted in charges being brought under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar was right that we are far too short of tools. This is one of the few areas where we would benefit from having more Home Office laws, as we need much sharper measures to prosecute both the traffickers and the perpetrators. As a parallel—I am not suggesting that this could be directly imposed in British law—when we were discussing legislation to deal with sex tourism, we discovered that the Philippines had passed a law under which a prima facie offence is committed if a tourist is alone with a Filipino child without being able to show good reason. It takes a great deal of courage for women and young girls to testify, but once they have done so, the criminals often get away with short prison sentences. Sentences should reflect the nature of crimes that often result in the destruction of young lives. Indeed, those lives are often ended by sexually transmitted disease.
	As always on immigration, the Government are sending out the wrong signals. Only one in five failed asylum seekers are removed from the UK, and more than 0.25 million asylum seekers live here. Asylum applications are still much higher than they were in 1997, having peaked at more than double the number in that year. The Government are taking virtually no action against legal advisers who exploit legal loopholes for use by people smugglers, whose business helps to sustain people trafficking. If memory serves, in Home Office questions, I was told that there were only 12 cases in the previous year in which legal advisers were prosecuted. Interestingly, none of those cases related to work permits. We had a discussion on the subject in Westminster Hall. It is obviously true that most people traffickers do not go anywhere near the work permit system, but a system that has quadrupled the number of people already in the country who apply successfully for work permits serves as a pull factor that is of huge use to people smugglers. Incidentally, can someone explain to me what has happened to the 1,160 young women admitted last year, allegedly to take up jobs as dancers? Do we really think that none of them is being exploited?
	The wider breakdown in immigration policy is creating an underclass of people who, at the more moderate end of the scale, are working in the UK illegally, subject to low health and safety standards and so on, through to the extreme example of those enslaved in child brothels. Hundreds of thousands of people continue to circulate illegally in this country, many of them to a greater or lesser degree in the hands of the people who originally smuggled them here. I sincerely hope that the creation of SOCA will help to eradicate this vile crime, and that the misery of the thousands of exploited and tormented women and children will be brought to an end.
	The Bill on its own will not achieve that. Successful action against illegal exploitation must involve other factors, a number of which I have mentioned—safe houses for witnesses, more counselling and support for them so that they are more likely to be willing to testify, much tougher penalties in courts, and an effective overall immigration policy.
	My final point relates to another topic. There was a tremendous cross-current of discussion on the introduction of the new crime of inciting religious hatred. Before the eloquent testimony of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on the subject, the Home Secretary was generous in giving way to about 10 Members in various parts of the House who were deeply concerned about the matter. I should like to leave hon. Members in all parts of the House with one thought on that—the point that I put to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), with whom I frequently disagree, although he is my near neighbour in Canterbury.
	I ask hon. Members to think about this: the law is already perfectly firm and clear on incitement to violence. We have a panoply of measures to deal with it. If Parliament passes an Act, the courts and the Attorney-General must look at it and say, "This is supposed to extend a power in a new direction. There must be some new dimension to this." What is this new dimension of incitement to religious hatred? How does it differ from incitement to violence? The only possible answer comes back to arguing about beliefs. If we go down that route, we have given up on free speech. I urge the Government to think again about these provisions, although I support the rest of the Bill and argue that it needs strengthening in a number of areas with regard to the vile trade in women and children.

Gordon Prentice: Atheism is included in the list, and I think that gnosticism is too. The list can be accessed on the web. As the hon. Gentleman says, the Bill captures those who believe in a religion and those who, conversely, do not. That is a little perverse.
	What do we mean by hatred? I suppose it means a really intense dislike. How would Christians feel about Satanists? I imagine that they would feel an intense dislike for the Antichrist—perhaps that is another one for the lawyers. After all, we have a Satanist in the Royal Navy now: he got some publicity a couple of months ago.
	I am not an expert in these matters, unlike some colleagues, but there is an ambiguity about where the line will be drawn on what is and is not acceptable. It all seems very subjective at the moment and, of course, one person's meat is another's poison. I have heard it said that the new legislation could be used by coreligionists—a fundamentalist Muslim against a more mainstream Muslim or an ultra-orthodox Jew against a liberal Jew. It might be felt that the liberal Jew was in some way selling out the religion.
	Intention is not included in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) pointed out. Intention is not required for the offence to be committed. It must be shown only that the action had the effect of stirring up religious hatred. The hon. Member for Canterbury pointed out that the statute book is very thick and there must be any number of ways in which the police and the prosecuting authorities could successfully bring to book someone who incites violence.
	In fact, Lord Desai made that point when he said that we do not need a new law, because the existing provisions should be sufficient. That point was amplified last night by an eminent academic lawyer, Professor Jowell, speaking in the Jubilee Room. He said that, for an offence to be committed,
	"the words, behaviour, written material, programmes or recordings must be threatening, abusive or insulting".
	He said that the provisions were very vague and he was not sure whether they covered something that was offensive. He also said that the provisions set a very low threshold and he was not sure what sort of statement would cross the threshold and be liable to prosecution.
	The Home Secretary told us earlier that the person of the Attorney-General provided a lock or failsafe, because he would make the decision on prosecution. However, in deciding whether or not to prosecute, the Attorney-General would be establishing a benchmark of what was and was not acceptable. Is that a proper safeguard? Who knows what kind of religious beliefs a future Attorney-General might hold. We might end up with a really fired-up, souped-up, born-again Christian: we do not know.
	The final worry is that the Bill may encourage self-censorship. People may be wary of saying anything that could be taken out of context and cause offence. The people who say that most passionately are those who work in the creative world—journalists, writers, comedians and performers. The comedian, Rowan Atkinson, who attended the meeting in the Jubilee Room last night, said that he believed that the Bill would lead to a
	"chilling of the climate of free expression".
	He went on to say that it was incredible that in future he might crack an illegal joke. That is astonishing and not very funny, so I hope that the measure will be considered exhaustively in Committee, because many people out there, as well as Members on both sides of the House, have big reservations about the new offence that we are about to enact.

Bob Spink: I am glad to see that the Minister agrees.
	My second point about SOCA is that the agency will be close to sinister organised crime, and although there must be no crossover, that danger is always present in such organisations. We shall give the agency many new and powerful tools, so we must also have procedures for complaints about and regulation of the agency that command public respect and confidence.
	The Home Secretary said today that accountability would be provided by the Home Affairs Committee. I do not quite understand how that will work, and I remain to be convinced about it. Clearly, there must be a strong independent element in the complaints channels, which must be publicly accountable and transparent, and it is not clear to me that the Independent Police Complaints Commission will work well.
	The single co-ordinated and integrated agency—SOCA—will take the fight to those involved in serious crime. We should all welcome that, but we need to look carefully at the status of SOCA's officers, who will lose their status as officers of the Crown. The Police Federation has serious concerns about that, and we must listen carefully to those concerns, not least because the vast majority of current National Crime Squad officers are unwilling to submit to transferring to SOCA, which may represent a great loss of skills for tackling serious crime.
	I come now to a raft of technical police powers that I broadly welcome. The extension of investigative powers, which will enable the police to collect evidence and compulsorily question those who can help to solve serious crimes, particularly while the crime is hot, is an important measure. Used sensibly, it can help. I broadly welcome the extension of powers of arrest to all offences, but we must define limits to that, of course. I have great concerns about citizens' arrests, as will most hon. Members.
	I welcome the super-warrants that will empower the police to act quickly against villains who are now much more organised and cleverer. They will give the police increased power and flexibility while the chase is on and the evidence is still available. I also welcome the police power to test for drugs at the point of arrest. The increased power for the police to take forensic evidence at the earliest possible moment must also be greatly welcomed. At a much lower level, the power to deal with incorrectly registered and uninsured vehicles is long overdue.
	The powers to tackle animal rights extremists and to protect people from serious harassment are also long overdue, although I do not know why we did not simply extend the powers in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to do just that. That would have been a much easier way to deal with the matter, and it could have been done years ago. However, the power to remove protesters or to put onerous conditions on them, particularly as we are taking that power to deal with the problem outside Parliament now, gives me deep cause for concern. As someone said, hard cases make bad law. That is absolutely true, and we must be careful not to over-respond to the situation in front of Parliament. We must do nothing to stop fair and decent protesting in this country.
	All those powers will enable us to make society safer and to bring more villains to justice—we all want to do that—but they will also enable us to establish people's innocence earlier. If we are taking evidence and testing earlier, we can establish people's innocence earlier. That must not be forgotten, and it is a very good thing. People who are innocent would not object to those powers being used on them, as that would establish their innocence.
	These measures will help us to improve detection rates and therefore to increase convictions. Detection and conviction are the best ways to deter serious and organised crime. These measures will tip the scales of justice back towards the innocent victim and society, and against the serious villain. Some of the measures may offend the legal profession, but hon. Members must act in the best interests of society, not in the best interests of the Law Society—although I thank it for its excellent briefing on the Bill. It is high time we took tough action to catch and convict villains and to support the victims, especially if they have protected themselves, their families and their property against burglars, intruders and other attackers. We must also make the punishment of convicted people much tougher.
	The Bill makes changes to the judicial system and increases police powers. I wait to see how Queen's evidence—plea-bargaining—will be designed and work in practice. It offers clear administrative advantages, and I am not necessarily against that. I stress again, however, that when a sentence is given it must be appropriate, even after a plea bargain. We must not give slaps across the wrist to serious criminals. The punishment must be so tough that they and others are seriously deterred, and must also strongly promote and enable the rehabilitation of criminals while they are in prison. Bad people can and do reform to become good people, but not often enough under our politically correct wimpish systems of punishment.
	Tough and harsh action at the start of a career in crime can and does deflect many away from crime. A constituent from Hadleigh e-mailed me yesterday to ask me to raise that with the Home Secretary. My constituent knows full well that tough action at the start of a career in crime can save not just society from crime, but the life of someone who gets involved in crime. Sadly, the Bill does not address punishment in any way. We need a Bill to do that.
	We can all welcome the witness protection proposals and the improved money-laundering provisions, but we must not forget low-level offences such as credit card crime and cheque fraud. Pound by pound, those crimes can feed through into serious crime and fund terrorism, on the old IRA model. I hope that SOCA will bear that in mind, especially while we suffer from the threat of terrorism, which on the international scale is largely from Muslim sources—and although that is a fact, I might be at risk under the religious hate crime provisions for saying it. That would be wrong.
	The religious incitement measures will damage freedom of expression and religious liberty. They will prevent fair comment about religious beliefs and cults and enable them to silence their critics. Some cults are off the wall, some are downright nasty, some are dangerous and some are just silly—we have heard about the Jedi knights twice already, I think. Some cults are corrosive to society, especially Christian society, which is still broadly the society that we enjoy in this country—and I do not want anyone ever to be at risk of being prosecuted for saying that.
	The law will be brought into disrepute by this measure. The Attorney-General and the courts will find it impossible to interpret the proposals consistently. How will we select a jury to deliberate on such charges? Will the jurors' religion be taken into account when the jury is formed? What relevance would that have to the decision that they made, depending on whose religious beliefs were being offended?
	The Bill could even prevent comedians from poking fun at religions. It is a measure of how civilised we are that we can tolerate and withstand fun, jokes, jibes and criticism. The Bill is a move backwards to a less tolerant society. I can just imagine the thought police dragging Dawn French, under arrest and in handcuffs, off to prison after a particularly challenging episode of "The Vicar of Dibley"—[Interruption.] It might take several police to do that job, but where would the outrageous alternative comic stand in the face of the Bill, and who would like to see Billy Connolly thrown in jail?

Fiona Mactaggart: Present law protects people not only against incitement to violence, but against incitement to racial hatred. The courts decided that two religious groups, the Jews and Sikhs, were covered by that protection, though it has to be said that that law has not stopped some of our comedians from making pretty florid racist jokes, so the hon. Gentleman's charge that humour would be silenced seems ill founded. Presently, only Jews and Sikhs are protected against incitement to hatred on the basis of their faith; Christians and Muslims are not protected in that way, and they deserve the same protection.

Tony McWalter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, there is a small distinction between toleration and tolerance. One of the things that got built into our system was toleration. That was saying not that every creed had the same value—clearly, some creeds had better value than others—but that we would at least not seek to gainsay the practices of those who profess other ideas.
	The crucial point is that a kind of anodised version of religion characterises the Government's view both in this debate and the previous debate. That anodised view thinks only about religions in terms of the light side—in terms of what they enjoin positively and the extent to which families, cultures and people are bound together by that set of beliefs. That is why we want to tolerate different belief systems—people have the right to conduct their lives in that way. We must be vigilant, however, about the extent to which people sometimes profess creeds that express deep, vengeful and murderous intolerance. Sixteenth century Calvinism was such a belief. Incidentally, I do not know the extent to which these remarks will be seen as negative by large numbers of my constituents. It was such a belief, however, and from what little I know about it now, it may still be.
	One of the reasons why Calvinism was such a vengeful and murderous creed, and why its state wished to extirpate anyone who did not profess it, was that there had been a Catholic inquisition 40 years before. Calvinists therefore saw the people whom they were vilifying as destroying the lives of dissenters. Some might say that their extreme hostility to Catholicism, which is etched into Calvin's work, had the justification of those earlier events.
	Within the notion of a creed, we have a right to be vigilant about whether there are people in our society who profess a creed that has a capacity for an intense negative and dark side.
	I think that, as leaders of the nation, we owe it to the nation to be vigilant. We are the custodians of John Locke's views, although they were expressed imperfectly at the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was right about that. We are the custodians of that tradition, and it is right for us to be vigilant in ensuring that the beliefs people express do not go beyond the bounds of what is acceptable to society.

Tony McWalter: Members of any religion are much more likely to take offence than those who hold less strong views. Most people in our society are fairly ignorant of such matters, myself included. I do not know enough about Sikhism to be able to delineate its dark side. But through education, we perhaps manage to convince all people that they should try to look honestly at their beliefs, reflect on them and see whether they have a tendency to conduce to bad behaviour in certain circumstances in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. That is one of our society's values, and we bring it to those of different religious persuasions.
	It is unlikely that the Government will rein back on this provision, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning of this short speech—[Interruption.] It is not so short now. This is a good Bill that contains lots of valuable things, but schedule 10 is not of value and I hope that the Government will resile from pushing it through on Report and Third Reading.

Michael Weir: On listening to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) go on at length about the dark side, it struck me that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) perhaps had a point in mentioning the Jedi knights. He will doubtless now have a huge mailbag from obsessive science fiction fans, explaining the true place of Darth Vader in the Jedi religion. Fortunately or otherwise, the part of the Bill in question does not apply to Scotland, so I shall quietly side-step this issue, leave it to the Scottish Parliament to deal with its own version of that provision, and address instead the nitty-gritty issues relating to the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
	I should say at the outset that we in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru acknowledge that there is merit in the idea of cross-border co-operation in dealing with serious organised crime. We are not opposed to the Bill and we recognise the need for an organisation such as SOCA, but we have some serious reservations about the detail and, so far as the SNP is concerned, particular aspects relating to Scotland. SOCA's creation is a further indication of a move away from crime fighting on the ground and towards a more intelligence-led system. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke of the "Dixon of Dock Green" approach, but there is a balance to be struck between such a traditional approach and a completely technological one. I fully appreciate that a great deal of intelligence information is required to deal with organised crime successfully, but it is also essential to have people on the ground.
	SOCA will deal with many of the aspects of organised crime previously dealt with by Customs and Excise, which has moved toward intelligence-led operations. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, examined the operation of the Customs service in Scotland, and it is fair to say that we were less than impressed with the impact of this intelligence-led service. Many of our smaller ports do not have adequate Customs cover, and there is some evidence that many of those involved in the drugs trade regard the smaller ports as an easy route to getting illegal drugs into the UK. I suspect that that is increasingly true of people smuggling and other organised crime activities.
	I refer the Under-Secretary to the final paragraph of the fourth report by the Scottish Affairs Committee:
	"We support an intelligence-led Customs service, but not at the expense of all else. Accordingly, we recommend that HMCE should seek to supplement its approach to law enforcement in Scotland by increasing the number of occasions on which staff are on duty at strategic points. An important weapon in the fight against contraband should involve the strategy of anticipating likely avenues which traffickers might seek to explore next and putting into place appropriate procedures to deter them. We believe that prevention is better than cure. A frequent high profile Customs presence should be apparent in parts of Scotland where discernible risks of smuggling activity can be demonstrated."
	Those concerns remain, and they probably apply to other parts of the UK. Indeed, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made a similar point about his constituency. If SOCA is to be truly successful in defeating trafficking and other obnoxious organised crime, it must have sufficient officers on the ground throughout the UK, and should not rely entirely on remote intelligence. This morning, Sir Stephen Lander, the designated head of SOCA, noted on the "Today" programme that much organised crime in the UK originates abroad, so points of entry into the UK would be of essential interest to the agency. At many smaller ports, however, there is not even a fisheries protection officer, let alone a representative from Customs and Excise, so many of them could be used as points of entry for the import of illegal substances and for other obnoxious trades.
	The Public and Commercial Services Union has expressed concern about the resourcing of SOCA, as there appears to be little new money to set up the agency, which is expected to be cost-neutral in its first two years. Are cuts in other crime fighting agencies inevitable if it is to be fully financed? The concern expressed by the Scottish Affairs Committee comes into even sharper focus, as there is likely to be a reduction in the provision for many remote and rural areas. If smaller-scale drug smuggling is not deemed a sufficiently serious problem, it could be overlooked. SOCA's objective should be to stop the drugs trade and other such activities, not shift the focus on to larger operators.
	In preparing for our debate, I asked a parliamentary question to ascertain how many Customs officers were employed in Scotland. I was told:
	"HM Customs and Excise has 85 Law Enforcement investigation staff based in Scotland including two officers seconded to the Crown Office, Financial Crime Unit and Civil Recovery Unit to support the Lord Advocate's Proceeds of Crime Act strategy."—[Official Report, 30 November 2004; Vol. 428, c. 89W.]
	I would be grateful if the Minister clarified SOCA's intentions regarding the number of staff to be based in Scotland. Presumably, some Customs officers would be transferred or seconded, but how many officers will undertake other SOCA duties in Scotland?
	We are concerned about the annual plan and strategic priorities that are to be set by the Home Secretary. Under the Bill, he is required to consult Scottish Ministers, but it is not clear what will happen if they disagree. Scottish Ministers do not have the power to veto the way in which the agency operates in Scotland. Indeed, there is confusion about the Home Secretary's role in relation to the operation of SOCA in Scotland. Under clauses 8 and 9, which deal with the annual plan and strategic priorities, he must consult, but under clause 24, which deals with the power to give direction to a police authority, he must secure the agreement of Scottish Ministers. If the Home Secretary can set SOCA's priorities, effectively he has the power to give direction to police authorities, irrespective of clause 24. Will the Under-Secretary clarify that that is the case, and that by using those powers the Home Secretary will have the right to direct the operation of police in Scotland, at least within the ambit of SOCA's investigations? If that interpretation is correct, it is unacceptable and I shall seek a strengthening of the power of the Scottish Minister so that there is more than consultation. As perhaps envisaged in clause 24, there should be agreement on the operation of SOCA in Scotland, as crime is a devolved matter. I am surprised that Scottish Ministers did not insist on that.The same applies to the code of practice in clause 11, where again there is only a requirement to consult.
	On the Bill more generally, there appears to be a lack of a clear definition of serious organised crime. The original White Paper provided a definition, albeit a somewhat woolly one. It could be argued that one would know serious organised crime when one saw it, but that might not necessarily be so, especially at the outset of an investigation. There seems to be no brake on what the Home Secretary decides is serious organised crime. There has already been discussion today about travellers, for example. One hon. Member spoke about computer viruses, which may be organised crime if used, for example, to undermine computer systems for the purpose of stealing money, although that may not be the work of a single hacker. Another hon. Member assumed that paedophilia would not be within the scope of the Bill, but the activities of such rings—on the internet, for example—could be defined as serious organised crime. Some effort must be made to decide what serious organised crime is.
	Given the absence of a definition and the fact that the Home Secretary can determine priorities, there is no long-term plan for the agency. That is fundamental to dealing with serious organised crime, however it is eventually defined. As the Bill is drafted, the agency could be subject to changing political priorities as Governments change.
	From a Scottish perspective, the greatest concern relates to operational matters in clauses 23 to 25. Clauses 24 and 25 in particular cause us severe problems, as they relate to officers being seconded from police forces to SOCA, and vice versa. The most serious difficulty is that a civilian member of SOCA with no training in or understanding of Scots law and procedure could act with the powers of a police constable in Scotland. That raises serious questions not only about undermining police forces, but about the potentially disastrous consequences of not acting in accordance with Scots law or procedure, which could allow those caught in a SOCA investigation to get off on a technicality.
	I raised the matter earlier in an intervention, but in his usual manner the Home Secretary brushed it off as not being of any great importance. He mentioned that officers had operated successfully with the French authorities on immigration. That may well be true, but I am sure they did not act independently of the French authorities on French soil, which effectively could happen in the agency. It is not a trivial or purely legalistic point. If the proper procedures are not carried out, there could be serious consequences for the whole investigation. After the investigation and charge stage, the Lord Advocate and the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland take over the case and it would go through the Scottish procedure thereafter, so there is the potential for huge difficulty.
	It would be unacceptable if SOCA could authorise any officer in its employment to operate with the powers of a police constable in Scotland without any knowledge of the difference between English and Scots law and procedure. I urge the Minister to reconsider the provision and ensure that proper training is provided. I accept that it might be necessary for a SOCA officer from south of the border to be seconded to an investigation in Scotland, but only with proper training.
	Interestingly, the Police Federation of England and Wales also raised concerns about the clause, from the opposite point of view, arguing that if a police officer transfers to SOCA, he could lose his status as an officer of the Crown. That problem has also been raised before, and deserves more consideration.
	The Law Society of Scotland has raised another point in relation to clause 46, which deals with the assault and obstruction of SOCA officers. There appears to be a discrepancy that could result in there being a variation in the maximum sentence for that crime. The society says that the maximum sentence that can be imposed in Scotland under the clause is 12 months in prison, but that the maximum for the analogous crime under section 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 2002 is nine months.
	The maximum sentence possible for assaulting police officers or other emergency workers under the new Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the Scottish Parliament, is also nine months. It would seem illogical to have different sentences for the same crime. I appreciate that the Scottish Parliament might want to consider increasing the maximum sentence that it allows, rather than the other way around, and that that would probably be the best way to deal with the problem.
	As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) noted earlier, the PCS union has raised concerns about the resources available to SOCA to employ its own staff at competitive terms and conditions. If staff are to be seconded from other departments on better terms and conditions that those available to full-time SOCA staff—and given that staff may be coming from various agencies, there is a clear danger that that might happen—and if they are doing the same work, that could create a two-tier work force and all the resentment and problems that go with that. If SOCA is to be the success that we all want it to be, it must be properly resourced to avoid those problems.
	In conclusion, I repeat that we support SOCA in principle and can see the logic behind it. It will have an important part to play in dealing with organised crime which, by its very nature, tends to be cross border. However, there are serious concerns about the aspects of the Bill that I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will take some of them on board. We do not oppose the measure and hope to see SOCA in operation, but we hope that Scots law and procedure are properly protected in the final version of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend entices me into an area of theological debate in which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and others might wish to participate. We might talk about prevenient grace and double predestination, to which my hon. Friend effectively referred when he mentioned Calvinism. However, now is probably not the time to debate such issues as you might call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Islamophobia is a serious issue that affects many communities, not only those with a large congregation of Muslims, in cities such as Bradford or in the east end of London, but those with small numbers of Muslims. Where there are only two or three Muslims in a community, they can often feel far more isolated and can be subject to quite sustained personal vilification and harassment on the basis, partly of their colour, but often, too, of their religion. This country should not countenance that. Far from the accusation that the clause will be intolerant towards religious expression, I believe it to be a statement of Britain's inclusiveness and its acceptance and toleration of different faiths.
	Islamophobia is sometimes deliberate and sometimes casual. It is a great shame that so few people in this country understand the basic tenets of Islam. Remarkably few of us, even in the House, properly understand what jihad is. We completely fail to understand it when we describe it as a crusade; the concept is very different from that.
	It is a shame that most religious studies courses in our universities are entirely confessional and vocational, for all sorts of historical reasons. I am an external adviser for the Oxford MA degree in theology and it saddens me that, for that degree, although one can study many of the Calvinist teachers of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, one is still unable to study many of the great Jewish or Islamic teachers. Only when we can turn that around, will we have a chance of understanding Islam properly and of binding that community fully into the heart of British society.
	We need to make a move because the existing loophole has been regularly and deliberately used by those who want to foster racial and religious unrest—those who dislike people who do not fit into their white perception of how Britain should be. I am talking primarily of the British National party but people in other organisations have deliberately used the loophole, too. Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), referred to a BBC television programme that showed how the BNP are doing so.
	Violence of any kind towards any person, whatever their religion, is obviously wrong. Setting fire to people's homes, attacking synagogues, gurdwaras or mosques, sending horrible literature or putting excrement through people's front doors because of their race or religion is wrong and it is already covered by the law. However, while we allow a culture of hatred towards different religions to exist in this country, we enable that violence to grow in society. That is the menace I want to prevent by bringing the clause into law.
	Some false arguments have been made this afternoon. We have heard much of the argument that the clause will harm freedom of religious expression, yet half the time the piece of religious expression that people seem to want to have the freedom to exercise is the freedom to hate other people. That is so distant from any understanding of any religion that I have come across that I find it rather difficult to comprehend.
	As we heard when we debated this matter the first time around in 2001, there is an argument that people should have the freedom to make the Westminster confession. The Westminster confession is robust in its attack on the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church—or the whore of Babylon as it is referred to in some of the documentation that was produced at the time. I agree that people should have the right to make the Westminster confession. They should have a perfect right to criticise the views of the Pope and to disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger and the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. There are large areas of theological dispute that I could have with them, but it is not a limit to freedom of expression to say that one should not incite people to hate Catholics.
	Similarly, in the 19th century, when Christmas trees came into fashion in this country, many Calvinists believed that they were a terrible thing and that Britain was going back to its pagan roots as well as adopting Catholic symbols because people were celebrating Christmas. Some people may argue forcefully that all such celebration is wrong, which is fine. What is unacceptable is then to argue that those people who have Christmas trees in their windows or who celebrate Christmas are lesser people in society than anyone else and to foster hatred against those people, because out of hatred comes violence. I believe that it is perfectly possible in law to draw a distinction between incitement to religious hatred and forcefully holding a different theological position.
	Another argument that has been advanced this afternoon—by some hon. Members of considerable standing in the House, so I am slightly surprised—is that there is no need to prove the intent to incite religious hatred and that that goes a step further than the Public Order Act 1986. In fact, that Act contains no provision to prove intent to incite racial hatred. The provision relates to intent, to provoking a breach of the peace or to the likelihood of such a breach of the peace being created. There is an exact parallel with incitement to religious hatred.
	The shadow Home Secretary said in a rather curious speech, which ended extremely abruptly, that the United Kingdom had always been tolerant of other religions. That is profoundly untrue. We do not need to take a great lesson in the religious history of the United Kingdom to know that the Jews in York and in many other parts of this country, such as the east end of London, have suffered serious attacks throughout the centuries. The United State of America was founded in large measure on the back of religious dissidents who left this country because they found it intolerant.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving me on to a different tack. I suspect that there will be remarkably few complaints, unless some of the hon. Members who spoke today are suddenly going to declare themselves. Once the few vexatious cases that are brought in the first months are dealt with robustly, we will have seen off the problem. I honestly do not believe that the measure is likely to produce a plethora of complaints over a long time. In fact, the gain to be had from being able to say to the British Muslim community that it is considered to be a resident part of our community, with the same protections under the law as other racial and faith groups, represents a significant benefit to all our society.
	I am aware that Rowan Atkinson has advanced a counter argument. I think he once played the Bishop of Bath and Wells in "Blackadder", and he has always been interested in religion as a ripe source of comedy. I remember watching the hilarious moment when many Muslims were shown bowing down to pray and someone said, "The Ayatollah Khomeini has lost his contact lens." Rowan Atkinson said yesterday that it was important that he should not be prevented from cracking that kind of joke. Similarly, I remember Robert Runcie and David Jenkins being heartily lampooned in "Spitting Image". I knew David Jenkins at the time, and he enormously enjoyed the idea of having achieved such prominence. It may be that Anglicans are used to being lampooned because we have had centuries of it.
	The truth of the matter is that I do not believe for a single instance that anybody is likely to use the Bill to prevent comedians from cracking decent jokes or from satirising, lampooning or holding up for jolly abuse clerics of any particular religion. The spiritual pride and hubris shown by any cleric who chose to use the Bill to prevent the mickey being taken out of him would be his undoing. The argument of those who think that we will lose the ability to satirise religion is overblown and misplaced. For that matter, I do not believe that theological disputes will come to an end just because we have instituted a law on incitement to religious hatred.

Chris Bryant: No. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to clarify my argument, which is that there is an injustice in the law. Many groups in society are protected from incitement to hatred against them, but those who are not include those of particular religions, most notably those who subscribe to the Islamic faith. They should have that injustice seen to in law. I am almost certain that some cases will be vexatious, but there will not be many of them. Once they have been dealt with robustly by the Attorney-General, it is unlikely that such vexatious cases will be brought forward again. If there is real incitement to religious hatred, however, the law should be used to tackle the problem, not least because Islamophobia is rife. It leads to an increasing sense of danger for many young Muslims in particular, and we should give them every protection that the law can afford.
	The version of religion that I have heard today is not the version that I have grown used to, neither through my schooling in Cheltenham nor, for that matter, through my theological training at Oxford. I do not believe that all religions hold as their fundamental tenet that they are unique. Indeed, many religions expressly declare that there is truth in other religions. All three of the main world religions declare that the others have some truth in them.
	It reminds me of the classic story of the Welshman from the valleys who is lost on a desert island. When he is rescued, having been there for 10 years, his rescuer says, "I see you have built two chapels. I can understand why you have built one chapel, but why build two?". The Welshman responds by saying, "It is simple. That is the chapel I go to; and that is the chapel I don't go to." It is all too easy, after the crusades and centuries of battles between different expressions of faith, to subscribe to the view that every religion is always a problem in society because it preaches hatred. I do not subscribe to the tenets of the dark side, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead mentioned earlier, and I do not believe that we should be encapsulating in law what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said earlier—that he reserved his right as a Christian to hate other people.
	My final point to Ministers is that although the Bill is a good measure, we could make it better by abolishing the blasphemy laws and, for that matter, by removing the Church of England's privileges in terms of its seats on the Bishops' Bench in the House of Lords.

Mark Hoban: First, I apologise for not having been in my place to hear the conclusion of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who made one of his typically robust defences of Government policy to the House. I would also like to highlight the speech of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). In characteristically thoughtful style and with philosophical and historical sweep, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the issues surrounding clause 119 and schedule 10, to which I too want to speak. I suspect that when he hears my speech, he may find some pale echoes of his own thoughts.
	There is much in the Bill to agree with and support. The Home Secretary described it in his peroration as a practical Bill with practical applications. Most of the Bill might meet that stricture, but I am not entirely sure that clause 119 does. I do not believe that that clause and its associated schedule are practical in their application in tackling the problem that the Home Secretary outlined.
	I shall suggest a few reasons why I believe that clause 119 will not work. First, there is a great deal of confusion between race and religion. The Bill seeks to draw together religious and racial hatred in the context of the legislation that first brought the crime of inciting racial hatred into force in 1986. It is right that people of every race should receive special protection from discrimination and hatred. There comes a point, however, when certain religious groups—we have talked about the Jews and Sikhs—are regarded in case law as being ethnic groups in their own right. They receive protection, as was made clear in a particular legal case, not necessarily on account of their religion, but because of their ethnic group.
	I believe that we should distinguish between people's race and their religion. To exaggerate to make a point, a person's religion is, on the whole, a matter of choice, conscience or conversion, whereas a person's race is not. Speaking as a cradle Catholic, I can happily say that there may be cultural or family reasons why someone embraces a faith, and that those reasons may change over time in accordance with the exercise of conscience, but religion remains largely a matter of choice. As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, some people reject the gift that is offered to them through their lives, whereas some would argue, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic"—I am not convinced that that is necessarily so, although in my case it may be.

Mark Hoban: In some cases, the Catholic Church gave people the opportunity to exercise their own consciences to decide whether the war in Iraq was just.
	If a soldier were serving in the armed forces when the Catholic Church had said that the war was unjust and the soldier should not be fighting in it, what would happen if his colleagues started to question his loyalty, commitment, dedication and willingness to carry out orders? The Minister has suggested that that would not be inciting hatred, but it would not need to provoke hatred or to have any physical manifestation to be interpreted by some people as inciting hatred.
	The further we go into this religious debate, the more strident and vitriolic the argument becomes, and the more the loyalty of people serving Queen and country is questioned, for example, the closer we get to what might be deemed a grey area. The Bill is not clear about exactly what constitutes incitement to religious hatred. Could its provisions actually set one soldier or sailor against another? We also need to be aware that if they were applied to certain groups of people engaged in religious activity, those people might be deemed to have fulfilled some of its criteria. The Bill is very quiet about what constitutes hatred. People might think that this is somewhat fanciful, but it is not that long since we heard the slogan, "Home rule is Rome rule," and some of those sentiments might still be around today.
	There is also the issue of intent. In the context of the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred, "Halsbury's Law Direct" says:
	"It is merely required that the defendant should intend to stir up racial hatred by his conduct or that such hatred is likely, having regard to the circumstance, to be stirred up thereby (whether or not the defendant realised this would be likely)".
	So someone could, for example, create an art work that they felt was a powerful polemic against religion, but they could be caught under the provisions of the Bill if that art work were deemed by others to incite religious hatred, even if there had been no intention to do so.
	There are many grey areas involved in trying to determine how the provisions should be applied to religious activity. There is also a broader point, however. Where does this leave freedom of speech? How do we reconcile freedom of expression with laws that prevent incitement to religious hatred? Religion is a legitimate area for public debate. My concern is that, consciously or unconsciously, legislation of this nature would curb the freedom of speech. The threat of being prosecuted, of vexatious litigation or of the police being summoned to investigate a religious meeting or the activities at a stall where religious literature was being handed out, for example, could be enough to make people think again, and stop them undertaking the legitimate expression of their views.
	The Home Secretary referred to the Salman Rushdie test: would Salman Rushdie's book be banned under the terms of the Bill? He was clear that it would not. However, one man's free speech might be another man's legitimate debate, or another's incitement to religious hatred. This is a matter of perception and perspective. Not everyone sees these issues from the same liberal perspective that judges them on their merits and sees them as intellectual arguments. Certain writing, for example, might be intended to provoke and stimulate debate, or even to cause offence. However, we do not all share the common starting point of that liberal perspective, and some people will seek to use this law to curb freedom of expression. Although a number of Church groups have supported this legislation, other voices have been raised in opposition to it, expressing concern about its impact on freedom of expression.
	This is an important and sensitive issue that we need to consider carefully. We cannot divorce it from existing legislation on religiously aggravated crimes in terms of blasphemy. We ought to consider such legislation separately rather than as an add-on to an important Bill, so that we could have proper and full debate— not just on the Floor of the House but in Committee —on how to give proper protection both to religion and to freedom of expression.
	Clause 119 and schedule 10 will not help to promote that free religious debate. I believe that they will be used to curb freedom of speech and to undermine much of what is already said in this country that represents matters of religious debate, about religions and creeds of all types.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome this wide-ranging Bill. I must admit that even when I realised how wide-ranging it is, I did not think that the debate on it would encompass issues so far afield as 16th century Calvinists and 21st century Jedi warriors, but so be it.
	It is perhaps unfortunate that much of the debate has concentrated on the one major contentious issue, although that is the nature of debate. Before I make my contribution on that issue, I shall draw out other aspects of the Bill that will be enormously welcome. My first thought on reading the Bill was that it contains a huge range of measures. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who led for the Opposition, commented that there are strategic elements and a whole lot that has just been thrown in. However, all the provisions have a commonality of aim.
	The Bill is designed to put the law, those who support it and law-abiding citizens one step ahead of the criminals so that their values prevail over those of the criminal. The Home Secretary, when introducing the Bill, commented on the effectiveness of many criminals as capitalists. When I consider the ingenuity of major criminals, and indeed of some of the most antisocial young people causing havoc on local streets, I cannot help but feel that we and they would all be immeasurably better off if they only turned their effort to socially productive purposes. In many ways, the legislation is designed to make their preferences and preferred lifestyles more difficult to achieve and perhaps to give them and society a greater incentive to abide by the law.
	The Bill will change the balance of advantage of behaviour in favour of the law-abiding citizen. It might not seem obvious why one piece of legislation should deal with a strategic organisation and the collection of strategic information, which are designed to curb the activities of the super-gangs, drug smugglers and people smugglers, while also giving local community support officers and local legislative bodies the right to combat localised crime in the form of antisocial behaviour, but there is a common theme that is designed to reinforce the Bill's ultimate objective.
	This Bill is about giving confidence in the law. Every time a crime goes unsolved and every time a person indulges in antisocial behaviour but is not apprehended, it reflects badly on the law, law agencies and public agencies, and reinforces the intent of those who want to disregard them.
	I want to single out one or two elements in the Bill that are worthy of particular mention. First, on financial reporting orders, I and other members of the Northern Ireland Committee did quite a lot of work examining the effectiveness of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland, and made a number of recommendations on the Assets Recovery Agency in the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Certainly, assets recovery is an essential weapon in the fight against organised crime, and financial reporting orders are a logical extension of the principles that underpinned the proceeds of crime legislation.
	I have a query, however, which I hope that the Minister will clarify. While financial reporting orders relate to convicted criminals, who, having finished their sentence, might readopt their lifestyle and criminal activity and seek to regain the assets that they lost previously, it is not mentioned whether they will apply to someone who has been subject to the Assets Recovery Agency procedures, which require a lower standard of proof and may not involve a prison sentence. If we are to curb crime, particularly highly organised and lucrative crime, we must make it clear that crime does not pay at all, and not just if someone has been to prison. It must be clear that once a process has been implemented to recover ill-gotten gains, that process will continue throughout the person's life if they do not curb their lifestyle. That is an important element in law enforcement.
	Secondly, there is the issue of impounding uninsured cars, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, made some valuable points. It is symbolic to those 19 out of 20 motorists who do pay their car insurance and accept all the responsibilities of motoring that action is taken against those who drive uninsured. Many people on local estates know who is driving around uninsured, and seeing them get away with it day in, day out, with all the danger that that involves for other motorists and the expense that it generates for law-abiding motorists in terms of higher premiums, is infuriating. It is important that this legislation deals with that issue. Seeing people who engage in such antisocial behaviour losing out as a result, even if the full panoply of the law is not implemented in terms of court appearances and sentencing, will give local communities a degree of reassurance.
	Another element that will be extremely popular is the additional power to search for illegal fireworks. Perhaps that was an omission from the previous fireworks legislation, and like the hon. Member for Rhondda, my experience was that the antisocial use of fireworks was not as bad this year as in previous years. Anecdotally, however, I have still had complaints about people using fireworks which had noise levels that would appear to be illegal. They and I would welcome any move that gave increased powers locally to stop and search people, including retailers who are selling such fireworks.
	The issue of incitement to religious hatred has exercised many Members today. We had a mini-debate about it earlier, in the form of interventions on the Home Secretary. I must confess that I am old enough to remember our debates on race relations legislation in the 1970s. Although I was not here then, I read a great deal about it, and many of the arguments and statements that I have heard over the past couple of days reawakened vague memories of the arguments and statements that were produced then.
	Although some of the issues may be slightly different, looking back on that race relations legislation and its implementation I feel that a number of things must be said. First, it should be said that despite all that was said in the 1970s, the implementation of the legislation has been proportionate and there have been few prosecutions. Secondly, I think it can be said that most would agree that although there has been little recourse to prosecution, the existence of the legislation and the climate of opinion created by it have made a valuable contribution to race relations and to more moderate debate on the issue. Notwithstanding the foreboding expressed by some in the 1970s, I think that the legislation can be described as a success. I certainly do not know of many people who would advocate its withdrawal.
	It is obvious from the debate that I have heard so far that there are party differences on this issue, and differences within parties. I have heard some robust statements, and some interesting points have been made. I feel that if we can make race relations legislation work, there is no reason why we cannot make religious relations legislation work.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman makes an eminently sensible suggestion, with which I agree. Perhaps the Government could detach these provisions in some way and subject them to a free vote.
	It is always important to acknowledge good motives in politics, and certainly on the part of one's opponents. The Home Secretary referred to his having a noble motive in introducing the provision relating to the incitement of religious hatred. It is deeply hurtful and upsetting to be attacked because of one's faith or to experience one's religion being vilified and ridiculed. Many Christians in this country would probably say that they are the butt of adverse humour and believe that many aspects of public life challenge the faith that they hold dear, so I understand the Government's motives in including the clause in the Bill. We should all be moderate in our use of language, but it is especially important for people who are in positions of public prominence. We should not overlook the value of censure. We do not always have to resort to law, and public opprobrium can be used to rebuke people who do not use moderate language. Recently, some comedians experienced public censure when one of them overstepped the line.
	This is clearly not a party political matter, as Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about clause 119 and schedule 10. There are three reasons why we should be wary of those provisions and treat them with circumspection. First, the existing criminal law is fairly robust, and protects everyone from criminal acts and incitement to commit such acts. Since 2001, religiously aggravated offences have been introduced, further strengthening the law. Viscount Colville of Culross, who chaired the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales, said:
	"There is a very substantial amount of criminal law relating to incitement . . . It is much more positive and less abstract than some people may think . . . a good deal of criminal law is available . . . I do not believe that it has all yet been tried out before we invent something else."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004: Vol. 660; c.4467.]
	That is an important point. There is already a vast amount of legislation on the statute book. The problem is enforcement and making sure that the existing laws can be enforced properly and effectively. To digress for a moment, I am particularly pleased that my party has policies to recruit an extra 5,000 police a year. That is the right approach; we do not always need to introduce more laws. The existing law on incitement is much stronger than we have been led to believe by Ministers.
	Secondly, on freedom of speech, there have been a number of worrying incidents. Recently, the Bishop of Chester was reported to the police for remarks that he made in a sermon in the normal course of his business. It is worrying that the thought police are already investigating what happens in the pulpit. Furthermore, a pastor in Scandinavia was recently sent to jail for a month for making certain remarks in a sermon. It is a paradox of religious faith that it has the power to offend and upset but, at the same time, to give great comfort, satisfaction, joy and contentment to many people. Because of the exclusive claims of many faiths, they inevitably cause upset and offence to many other people. It is in the nature of many faiths to evangelise, which may also cause offence. It is incredibly important that we do not restrict the freedom of people of faith to express themselves fully in the way that they believe their faith calls them to do.
	We need to look at what has happened in other jurisdictions where Governments have introduced a similar type of law. In March 2002, a Christian group organised a seminar in Australia. It was a private meeting at which three recent converts to Islam sat at the back and took notes. What they heard caused offence to them, although one can argue about whether what was said was offensive. The Bill refers to words, material or recording
	"likely to be seen or heard by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred"—
	a similar situation. As a result of a complaint, the case was taken to court. It has been in the Australian courts for seven months and has become bogged down in the Australian legal system. It is a worrying precedent that we ought to bear in mind.
	I conclude by quoting from the executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Amir Butler, who said:
	"Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can exist only if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?"

Andrew Mitchell: We have had an interesting and useful debate. It lacked the party political controversy of some of our discussions, and some extremely interesting speeches were made. I shall try to respond to a number of points made in the debate, but I start by emphasising that in the past, when there has been substantial agreement between both sides of the House, there has often been acute danger ahead for us.
	The Bill, which we will not oppose on Second Reading, is something of a Christmas tree, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who speaks for the Liberal party, described it in his opening remarks. I agree and place on record our gratitude to NCIS and the National Crime Squad for what they have done. I also underline what the hon. Gentleman said about the national witness protection scheme. When I recently visited Nottingham to meet Mothers Against Guns, they eloquently stressed the importance of the witness protection scheme.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome expressed reservations about the new powers for community support officers and cited the 50 measures on law and order that have been introduced by the Government in the past seven years. It is clear from what he said that in Committee he and I will have much in common on our agenda.
	The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) spat out his support for those on his Front Bench and looked much better once he got that off his chest. He warned us not to over-flatter the criminals' success and inveighed against the Government's plans to deal with religious hatred, praising the motivation but pinpointing the dangers in practical terms. I very much agree.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who must be preoccupied today with his other duties, in which we all wish him wisdom and judgment, pointed out that religion is a matter of choice, whereas race is a matter of fact. He stressed that the two concepts should not be confused.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) made a wide-ranging speech in which he dealt with matters such as the proceeds of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that there had been far too many measures on law and order—50—since the Government came to office. He accused the Government of confusing activity with progress.
	The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made a really interesting speech. She agreed with the formation of SOCA and talked about people trafficking and drugs. She made two key points, on funding and on the danger that SOCA would act as a magnet for the best of our police forces. I shall return to both matters later.
	The hon. and learned Member for Redcar also made a number of technical points about disclosure notices. We are concerned that clause 56 goes too wide and that it allows powers to be exercised by a constable, whereas previous legislation required authorisation to be obtained at a very high level. We shall want to look at this matter in Committee. The honourable and learned Lady also mentioned the pivotal role of the custody sergeant and spoke of the dangers of civilianising that post. I thought that she completely demolished the Government's case, and I hope that Ministers will consider what she had to say very carefully.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made an excellent and moving speech in which he inveighed against people trafficking and the vile trade in children, women and men who are exploited and degraded by it. He said that the trade was worth nearly £20 million. He made clear how serious it is and said that the UK was a particular magnet for it, with 2 million people trafficked across our borders each year. In a speech that I have no doubt will be read with care by Ministers, my hon. Friend also set out the case against the clauses on incitement to religious hatred.
	The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) also spoke about religious hatred and advised us that there are no fewer than 390,000 Jedi knights in Britain. He also dealt with the question of definition. Rowan Atkinson was in the House only yesterday and, like him, the hon. Gentleman talked about the "chilling" of the climate of free expression. That is an excellent phrase.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) concentrated on the issue of religious hatred. The hon. Gentleman treated the House to a philosophical and historical perspective on religion, and attacked the Government for their anodised view. He urged the Government to resile from their support for the relevant clauses.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) gave a Scottish dimension to the debate. He supported SOCA, but expressed some concern about the difficulties inherent in implementing it in Scotland.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) took a view that was rather different from the one adopted by the more senior cleric on this side of the House who preceded him. Apart from him, only one other speaker supported the Government's proposals on incitement to religious hatred. He complained that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, did not give him a peroration. I shall see whether I can give him one towards the end of my speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) also spoke about clause 119, and pointed out the flaws in the Government's case. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) talked about financial reporting orders and said that crime must not pay. He was the only other speaker on the Government Benches to support the religious hatred clauses in the Bill.
	The final contribution from the Back Benches was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He opposed the religious hatred clauses, and underlined the importance of using moderate language in these discussions. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased by the moderate language used this afternoon.
	The Opposition want to help the Government with this Bill. We want to identify various matters that we shall raise in Committee, and I hope that the Minister winding up tonight will take a fancy to some of the amendments that we expect to propose.
	The first issue that we will want to discuss is the structure of SOCA. Although we support its formation, we understand that recruiting the brightest detectives and the best police from existing forces could damage those forces.
	There is already evidence that some key leadership elements are likely to be removed from the police. We hope that the Minister will explain in Committee why she did not consider secondment as an option for staffing the agency, as happens in the Army with the special forces. We hope that she will put our fears to rest about the danger of a leadership vacuum as a result of the brightest and the best being recruited to SOCA.
	We shall also want to be satisfied that SOCA, by dealing not with terrorism—we understand that argument—but with level 2 crime, including prostitution, drugs and people smuggling, will find a natural position between other law enforcement agencies. Considerable confusion could be caused, for example, if one agency is dealing with terrorism and another with people smuggling, as they are natural bedfellows. We will want to explore the relationship that SOCA will have with the intelligence agencies.
	We shall also want to be clear that there will not be confusion in any particular region in which SOCA is responsible for the fight against drugs but the police are responsible for enforcing the law. We fear that if a failure resulted, each side would blame the other, which would not be good for policing.
	We also want to be satisfied that the drive towards localism, local performance and local accountability will not be damaged by the new structure and that it will not have any unintended consequences. We want to be sure that addressing the regional vacuum will not cause problems elsewhere, especially in the relationship between SOCA and the local police forces.
	We also want to be clear about the adequacy of funding. How will SOCA's funding needs be addressed? We also want to be clear that the Home Secretary will not, under clause 9, arrogate to himself wide powers to determine strategic priorities. Parliament must be careful not to pave the way for an unscrupulous Home Secretary to determine strategic priorities with an eye to achieving a political purpose. The Home Secretary said today that a Cabinet Sub-Committee would guide him on that. My reading of clause 9 is that that is not in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade us that it does not need to be.
	We need to explore also the apparent provision—in clause 38(1)—that any member of staff of SOCA can be designated as having the powers of a police officer. It takes considerable training to be able to exercise those powers and we will need to explore that issue in Committee.
	The major theme of the debate has been the religious hatred clauses. It will not have escaped the Government's notice that the Opposition are deeply unhappy about them, and that feeling is shared on both sides of the House. We are keen to maintain the balance between religious freedom and freedom of speech, but the debate has shown that those clauses are confusing, will make bad law and will not work. The Minister should consider carefully the telling intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who asked precisely what threat the clauses were meant to stop. The Government have not answered that question. If it is the BNP, as many hon. Members have suggested, there are better ways to see off such dreadful people than introducing these clauses. My strong advice to the Minister is to have a word with the Home Secretary after this debate and to save the Committee and herself a lot of trouble by dropping those clauses now.
	We shall also want to explore the issue of animal rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) will look at ways of strengthening the Government's clauses, which we support as far as they go.
	We shall also want to know why the use of intercepts has not been included in the Bill. We are concerned by the lack of reference to them and we have called consistently for the Government to lift the ban on intercept use in courts. It is clearly odd to confine the fruits of intercepts to intelligence only. The UK is one of the few countries in which intercept evidence is not admissible and we hope that the Minister will explain why she is not changing that situation in this Bill.
	We shall also want to look at the changes to PACE, in clauses 101 to 115. We shall want to look carefully at several aspects, including the concept—as set out in the debate—that everything is now arrestable. I shudder to think of the paperwork, let alone anything else that would be involved in that legal change, which must be carefully considered.
	We need to look carefully into a number of aspects, including the power of a civilian to make an arrest in very much wider circumstances, which could be counter-productive. The all-premises warrant is a considerable extension of power and we shall want to explore precisely what its effects would be and whether they would be acceptable.
	Police community support officers have been discussed. A considerable increase in their powers is advocated in the Bill. We are not opposed to CSOs, but there has been no independent assessment of their effectiveness and value for money. We think that there should be one. Some forces, including Hampshire, have already made clear their view on CSOs and we are concerned about the additional powers of search and arrest, the use of equipment and the lack of training. It looks like an attempt by the Government to achieve policing on the cheap and could undermine confidence in the professionalism of the police.
	We should also like to consider the changes proposed on dealing with money laundering.
	We welcome the Government's announcement today that they will make the parents of under-10s responsible for the cost of wanton damage. Parents should have responsibility for their children.
	There are a range of views on dealing with behaviour in the vicinity of Parliament and the matter will probably be best left until Report, so that the House can have a considered look at it in a wider focus than in Committee.
	Finally, I turn to the general context for the Bill, where I fear that I must be somewhat less obliging to the Home Secretary and his team. If they think that by carpet-bombing the Queen's Speech with tough-sounding law and order measures—albeit ones with which the Opposition broadly agree—designed to conceal the Government's lamentable failures in combating crime, they will evade the justified wrath of the electorate at the appalling nature of their record on crime, they are sadly mistaken. The public will remember that these measures are not the start of Labour's agenda for fighting crime, but the product of seven years of talk, seven years of being asleep on the job, and seven years of failure.

Caroline Flint: The debate has been interesting, with about 14 contributions from Back Benchers.
	About 60 per cent. of the Bill deals with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the powers that go with it. There are also several other powers that will help to develop neighbourhood policing and will help the police on whatever level they operate, whether local, regional or as part of SOCA. They will all help to tackle crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) rightly said, the measure is about ensuring that the law is one step ahead on behalf of those who support the law.
	The creation of SOCA is not about setting up a new police organisation, but about bringing together the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and the immigration crime side of the Home Office, as well as the drug investigations of Customs and Excise, in a new organisation with a new culture. That is why we had to address the powers of that organisation. When people use phrases such as "the brightest of the best", they do a disservice to those who, for whatever reason, want to work in different forms of law enforcement. We should recognise their particular skills in what they do. Some people are more interested in local policing, while others are interested in regional law enforcement or national and international law enforcement. I would not make the assessment that anyone is better than anyone else; they are all helping to fight crime and to tackle those who are involved in it.
	In relation to the operation of SOCA at regional and local level, systems are already in place to ensure that different parts of law enforcement do not engage in operations that frustrate or put in jeopardy the work of other agencies. That will continue.

Caroline Flint: I am sorry, I cannot give way. There is only a short time for my speech and my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber for the whole debate.
	The Bill is also about ensuring that we deal with the operation of middle markets. That is why I was pleased to attend the launch in London just the other week of the middle market drugs unit, which has been established by the Metropolitan Police Service and Customs and Excise to tackle middle market drug organisations.
	I shall try, if I can, to get through the contribution made during the debate. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, raised a number of issues about the powers that the director general will be able to confer on those who work for SOCA and the powers of constables, Customs officers and immigration officers. It goes without saying that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the members of staff will need training in all those powers. That is certainly part of our thinking, and we will ensure that that happens. That also deals with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
	We are not persuaded of the need for an annual parliamentary debate on SOCA. Hon. Members have many opportunities to debate policing and wider law enforcement issues in the House.
	SOCA will not have a direct role in combating terrorism; but as has been said, terrorism is often funded by organised crime. SOCA will investigate such cases and seek to bring the offenders to justice, but in doing so, it will work very closely with the intelligence agencies and others.
	I wish to make it clear that no clause relates to intercept powers. There is ongoing discussion about that complex issue, but we do not intend to introduce any such clause in the Bill.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden also talked about borders, as did a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Canterbury and for Angus and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. Border controls are exercised by the three main border control agencies—the immigration service, Customs and port special branches—for a variety of reasons, not only to control immigration, but to facilitate genuine visits, detect contraband, collect revenue, prevent fraud and protect against terrorism. Those functions are distinct from the new agency's remit and will not be subsumed into it. The e-borders programme will help to create a modern, integrated and intelligence-led immigration control system that uses advanced passenger information, passenger name records and emerging technology to best effect.

Caroline Flint: No. I am afraid that I have not got time to give way.
	On the comments made about small ports, we will run pilot schemes at sites across the UK during 2005, with a view to rolling out new ways of working across most ports from 2006. We shall consider the points that the hon. Member for Angus made about that issue.
	On the suggestion that there has been no evaluation of the effectiveness of CSOs, 27 local evaluations have shown that CSOs have been well received by the public, with significant potential to reduce low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Initial findings of the national evaluation will be published before the Bill is considered in Committee. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said in his speech that the Hampshire force did not want its allocated number of CSOs. If that is the case, I suggest that the force let us know and we will redistribute those CSOs. I do not believe that such a redistribution would be supported by MPs for the area or, for that matter, members of the public.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked how SOCA will work in relation to other forces. As I have said already, SOCA will enable local forces to focus on level 1 and 2 crimes, while the agency will address national and international criminality. The Bill will allow SOCA to provide mutual support to forces. SOCA will be a UK-wide agency, and it will work closely with Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency in discharging its functions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Angus, who also made this point, that SOCA staff will be expected to have knowledge of the relevant Scottish law when operating in Scotland.
	The NCS and NCIS have a service authority—a point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—because they were clearly police-type bodies and therefore established along the lines of the police authority model. SOCA will not be a police force, but the SOCA board will exercise the strategic oversight of SOCA in similar ways to the service authorities.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the granting of immunity to someone under clause 65 or 66 would be drawn to the attention of the court where that person testified. The answer is, yes, that will happen in the normal way.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) asked whether the witness protection provisions would apply to someone subject to a disclosure notice under clause 56. The majority of people subject to disclosure notices are covered by the new witness protection provisions, as they are possible witnesses. Our intention is not that disclosure notices will put anyone at risk, and I will consider that issue further to find out how it is covered.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about complaints. The complaints procedure, including oversight, will be carried out by the IPCC and it will apply to all SOCA staff, not just those designated with police or other powers. We are planning to have direct recruitment into the organisation, but I shall check on how secondees might continue to operate or assist in the future.
	Power of arrest was mentioned and we were asked why the change is necessary. The findings of the PACE review were published more than two years ago. Since then, we have published detailed proposals in consultation papers on police powers. The Bill's provisions are fully supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. It is important to bear in mind the fact that under general arrest conditions in PACE, it is already the case that in practice all offences are arrestable.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) was concerned about people who are involved in serious fraud. The White Paper consulted on plea bargaining and we accept that it is desirable for all defendants to seek an indication of the likely sentence should they plead guilty. We will take the detail of that forward with the senior judiciary shortly, but I shall look further at what he said about that in Hansard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East raised issues to do with SOCA and how it would engage with the private sector. He may be interested to know that an article on high-tech crime and the use of the internet in a trade magazine for those working in that industry resulted in a number of people e-mailing the Home Office seeking to become special constables to assist in that area because of their expertise in the internet. In some respects, SOCA is all about looking at the particular skills that we need to tackle high-tech crime.
	I also welcome my hon. Friend's work on the all-party group on the internet. I have told him that we will table amendments to strengthen the Computer Misuse Act 1990, including the penalties that he mentioned. As others said, the Bill contains a number of provisions, and we take the view that adding to it at this stage is difficult and we shall not pursue it. However, we are looking for a suitable vehicle for that legislation.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned powers. There was a bit of a misunderstanding. SOCA staff will not be restricted to the powers that they held in a previous organisation. All powers of customs and immigration officers can be made available to designated SOCA staff, subject to the necessary training and accreditation. We are still ensuring that forces are aware of RIPA. A dedicated team in the Home Office provides support to practitioners on how to use the powers appropriately. We are considering whether there is a need to address problems further.
	A number of hon. Members referred to uninsured vehicles. I welcome the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for West Bromwich, West on uninsured vehicles and fireworks. We have the opportunity to tighten legislation and tweak it in some respects. I make no apology for that. It is one thing to pass laws in this place, but as we know, we only see how they work on the ground when they are implemented. That is why we sometimes have to return to the issues.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was worried about the implications for human rights. As he said, the face of the Bill states that it is our view that
	"the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
	We have been careful to ensure that we seek advice on those issues throughout the process.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar also mentioned the two-tier work force. There will be no two-tier work force. Following consultation with unions, it is our aim to establish a unified set of terms and conditions for all SOCA staff. We will not have police officers on police terms or customs officers on customs terms. She also asked about disclosure notices issued against those who have information rather than those who are suspected of having information. Clause 56(2) provides that notice can be issued against a suspect, and that will be the exception rather than the rule. In either circumstance, it is authorised by a senior prosecutor.
	My hon. and learned Friend also raised a number of issues on Queen's evidence. We have not made it a requirement that a person entering into a co-operation agreement has legal advice before doing so, but they usually will. As she said, they will be well advised to do so. However, it is not appropriate to legislate to force every individual to get legal advice in those circumstances.
	My hon. and learned Friend also mentioned human trafficking. She will know that, in addition to my other duties, I am engaged in a review of prostitution. Human trafficking was also raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury. I am very concerned about it. We will see how we can use the prostitution review to tackle that. We should also not forget what is already on the statute book in respect of labour and sexual exploitation. SOCA will, of course, have a role to play in these matters, too.
	Questions were raised about custody officers and I have to say that the Northumbria pilot scheme found that custody sergeants were champing at the bit to get out of the stations and be with the public. It has been greatly welcomed, and I see no reason why properly trained police staff cannot undertake the role to the same standard as police officers—a view shared by ACPO.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury raised a number of issues about people smuggling and trafficking in women and children. We are very concerned about that. He also made a point about paedophiles. He will know that the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad have, in their different ways, assisted operations to tackle paedophile rings. There is no reason not to do so and we ensure in our international contacts with practitioners and Ministers in the EU, for example, that matters of cross-border crime are understood and dealt with by many different countries, not just ourselves. It is a global issue that we must look into.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised a number of issues, including the effect of SOCA on the funding of Essex policing and local policing generally. A 3.75 per cent. increase in funding for Essex police was announced last week for 2005–0, up to £176 million, and police numbers have increased by 145 since 1997, with an additional 75 community support officers. It is all about added value for policing in this country. The hon. Gentleman referred to protests outside Parliament. We must ensure that we can safeguard the workings of Parliament in its unique surroundings. To that end, we believe it right and proper for the police to attach proportionate conditions on any protest.
	Several speeches were made on the subject of incitement to religious hatred. For example, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Aldridge-Brownhills, for Fareham, for South-West Bedfordshire and for Canterbury, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), the hon. Member for Castle Point, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, and of course the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, all spoke about it. They all had concerns about it or were against the provisions, though my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for West Bromwich, West also made good speeches in support.
	There are many issues and I would draw hon. Members' attention to a statement published this morning by the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, which clearly outlines the basis of the offence and why it is necessary. It said that the proposals
	"will make it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or written materials with the intention or likely effect of stirring up hatred against people targeted because of their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, as well as their race."
	I believe that it will close an unacceptable loophole whereby mono-ethnic faith groups are protected, but multi-ethnic faith groups are not. It will ensure that there is still a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of stirring up hatred against members of religious groups. This provision was supported by ACPO, which said that it sometimes wanted to prosecute but could not, and it provided evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences. It is right to move forward on this issue. It is not about stopping jokes, and it is not about stopping Rowan Atkinson or anyone else from expressing a point of view either to raise a laugh or engage in serious debate on these issues.
	I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the Liberal Democrats would vote against this measure. I remind him that the Liberal Democrat shadow Home Secretary said on 7 July this year:
	"This plan closes a loophole that has allowed inflammatory language to go unpunished, and the Liberal Democrats will give these plans their support."
	Perhaps it will be the same as with antisocial behaviour orders: the Liberal Democrats were against it and now they are for it; on this occasion, they were for it and now they are against it. We will wait with bated breath to see what will happen.
	Finally, the Bill is about tackling crime on a local, regional or national level. It comes from a Government who have put in more money than ever before, more police officers and more support on the ground for the people that we represent.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful for having secured this evening's Adjournment debate and wish to use it to highlight how one of my constituents has been treated by the courts system and the Home Office after the brutal murder of her son, Michael Moss.
	Michael Moss, aged 15, was murdered by three boys in the early hours of 16 November 1999. The murder was savage. After luring Michael to a school playing field, two of those convicted of his murder attacked him and stripped him naked. They left Michael seriously injured and unable to move. Then, they went to the home of the third killer, woke him and returned to the playing field. There, all three continued the attack.
	The killers used sadistic and gratuitous violence. There is evidence to show that they used swings to obtain height and thereby generated maximum force to cause greater injury from the violence they inflicted. They also used a broken spirit bottle to inflict stab wounds to Michael's neck. They subjected him to prolonged torture and violence.
	All three boys were convicted of murder at Liverpool Crown court on 26 July 2000. At the time of the attack, two of the boys who murdered Michael were aged 15 and one aged 16. The convicted boys were given life sentences by the trial judge. On 19 October 2000, Mrs. Elizabeth Moss, Michael's mum, was visited by a representative of the victim information unit of the probation service. At that meeting, she was informed that the tariff for the three offenders had been set at 10 years. Mrs. Moss was sure that this tariff was irrevocable. However, three years later—in November 2003—Mrs. Moss was contacted to be told that the tariff had not yet been imposed. Michael Moss's family were then invited to give their views to the Lord Chief Justice, who would consider their submission before setting the tariff. Mrs. Moss submitted information, which was detailed and lenient. She suggested a tariff of 15 years for such murders.
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out new starting points in relation to the calculation of tariffs in mandatory life cases. In this case, if these boys had been convicted after 2003, the minimum they would have received, including the mitigation of age, was 12 years. I welcome the Government's introduction of these higher minimum tariffs for such serious cases. However, in Michael's case, when the Lord Chief Justice announced his tariff in 2004, he decided on a sentence of 10 years for two of the boys convicted and nine for the third. He included in his judgment the statement that although Mrs. Moss's
	"views as to tariff are not relevant, they do indicate her praiseworthy and rational approach".
	Having been invited to comment and to make contributions on the tariff, Mrs. Moss's views were subsequently ignored.
	We are not here today to debate the tariff in this case. Instead, we should consider how Mrs. Moss and her family have been treated. Why were they asked for information if it was to be automatically rejected? In a written answer to my parliamentary question on 16 September 2004, the Minister with responsibility for prisons, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), said that the Sentencing Guidelines Council would provide
	"a more collaborative and transparent system, which is open to public scrutiny, and should engender greater public confidence in sentencing practice."—[Official Report, 16 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 1686W.]
	The actions of the courts and the Lord Chief Justice have been far from open and transparent in this case. They have led to confusion as to when the tariff was set and what influence the victim's family could hope to have when the tariff was being considered.
	My concern is that Mrs. Moss has never been told why her views were elicited only to be dismissed as irrelevant by the Lord Chief Justice. Despite writing to the Home Office on a number of occasions—and discussing this matter privately with the relevant Ministers—Mrs. Moss has never received an adequate response to this question. Neither has she received an apology, which, on grounds of insensitivity alone, she deserves. I would ask that the Home Office should offer her an answer and an apology.
	Mrs. Moss included personal details in her submission to the Lord Chief Justice. The details of this submission were revealed to the defendants and their families. Mrs. Moss accepts that, but was not prepared for the fact that personal details of the medical treatment required by the family to offset the emotional impact of the crime were widely publicised. It seems perverse that the Moss family's views were considered to be irrelevant to the process, yet details of the treatment that they required were suitable for public scrutiny. Mrs. Moss did not know that the judgment including those details would be published on the internet and so be publicly available to all. Could my hon. Friend the Minister explain what information is given to families when they make submissions to the Lord Chief Justice regarding the privacy and public use of such statements? Why was Mrs. Moss's express permission not sought if personal aspects of her submission were to be released publicly?
	The Lord Chief Justice states that the defendants have expressed remorse. The offenders have now been in prison for four years, and the Lord Chief Justice's statement was the first that the family have heard of such an expression of regret. Information regarding the progress or otherwise of offenders in custody, their attitudes to their crime and their conduct while in the prison system are matters that are purposely withheld from the victim's family. However, Mrs. Moss is able to learn through a public document, with unrestricted access, the institutions where the offenders have been held, the names of their psychiatrists, their supervising and probation officers and other information regarding their conduct. Why is such information withheld from the family of the victim when it can be revealed publicly without any consideration as to the consequences for the families involved?
	The Lord Chief Justice also said:
	"In my view the recommendation of a 10 year tariff in the case of this very serious offence by the trial judge was merciful. If over 4 years had not elapsed since the offence and my consideration of tariff in the case . . . I would have considered 12 years the correct tariff."
	The Lord Chief Justice drew attention to the length of time between the conviction and the imposition of a tariff in this case. He drew attention to the fact that this, along with other factors such as defender development, had affected his consideration of the tariff. I know that as a result of the European Court's view on the case of Venables and Thompson, the Lord Chief Justice could consider the
	"personal development of the defendant",
	but if the Lord Chief Justice had considered Michael Moss's case closer to the trial date, this information would not have been available to him when setting the original tariff. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice suggests that he may have come to a different conclusion if he had set the tariff closer to the trial date. Could my hon. Friend the Minister please explain why there was such a delay, as this time lapse has clearly affected the tariff that was set?
	Liz Moss, Michael's mum, has endured every mother's nightmare: her son was killed in the most horrific circumstances. Throughout the trial and sentencing of her son's murderers, she has sought justice in a moderate and commendable way. She is an incredible woman who has earned my deep respect for the calm way in which she has handled the terrible details of her son's death. At a time when victims' families need to feel that their views are relevant and valued, this family must feel that their own views have counted for nothing. Liz Moss has been treated very badly by this system, and she deserves at least an apology. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can also offer us an explanation on the questions that I have raised.

Paul Goggins: I begin my congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate on victim consultation in the review of life tariffs. She has drawn the attention of the House to the experience of her constituent, Mrs. Elizabeth Moss, who had to endure the unimaginable tragedy of her son Michael's brutal murder in 1999. In outlining her concerns to the House, she has, as on so many previous occasions, shown both a deep compassion and a firm commitment to her constituents.
	One of the Government's central aims is to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victims of crime. Indeed, during the previous Session of Parliament it was my privilege to take through the House of Commons the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which for the first time sets out clearly what the victims of crime can expect from the criminal justice agencies. It is vital for victims of crime to have information and advice about the criminal justice process, and an opportunity to receive information about key stages in an offender's sentence.
	It is the responsibility of the national probation service to arrange victim contact on behalf of us all in reaching out to victims in the important way that I have described. It consults victims before offenders' release from prison, so that they can make representations about any conditions that they think should apply to the offenders when they come out of prison on licence. That can include an offender's exclusion from a particular geographical area. It does not mean that victims have the final say in such matters—in particular, they do not have the final say on the length of sentences—but it does mean that their views are heard and properly considered.
	Responsibility for the setting of life tariffs—the tariff being the punitive period of a life sentence, or what could be described as the minimum period of imprisonment that must be served in custody—used to lie with Ministers. As my hon. Friend explained, in recent years it has gradually become a wholly judicial function as a result of landmark decisions in the domestic and European courts. Sections 269 and 270 and schedules 21 and 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force in December last year, established new arrangements for sentencing in all murder cases, and for setting tariffs—or, as they are now known, "specified parts" or "minimum terms".
	My hon. Friend referred to the setting of a 12-year tariff in relation to offenders under the age of 18 who have been convicted of murder. In fact, 12 years represents not the minimum term but the starting point used by a judge passing sentence to determine the appropriate sentence. He or she can move the starting point up or down depending on the circumstances.
	The distinction between a tariff set by Ministers and a specified part announced by the sentencing judge in court is that the latter runs from the date of sentence and will have already credited the offender with any time spent on remand. That may seem a small detail, but it is quite important and will be of particular interest to a victim's family, who will want to know how long a life sentence prisoner can expect to serve before being considered for release.
	There are three groups of offenders who were and continue to be affected by the arrangements introduced by the 2003 Act. They consist of those sentenced after 18 December 2003, whose minimum terms will now be set in open court by the trial judge, those sentenced before that date for whom no minimum term has been set, and those sentenced before then whose tariff, set by Ministers, has not yet expired. Cases in which no minimum term has yet been set will be referred to the High Court. Offenders whose tariffs were originally set by Ministers can apply to have them reviewed. In such cases tariffs may remain the same or may decrease, but they cannot be increased.
	The views of the victim's family will be sought in all cases in which an offender has yet to receive a minimum term, or has applied for a review of his or her tariff. The judges who set and review minimum terms will have an opportunity to receive statements from families about the events surrounding a loved one's death, and the immediate impact of the offence on their lives. National probation service victim contact teams are using their considerable knowledge and expertise to work with victims' families in order to present these views to the judges.
	If they so wish, families will have the opportunity to attend the High Court to hear the judge's decision on the minimum term to be served. Indeed, I can confirm that guidance has recently been issued to victim liaison officers confirming the arrangements for submitting these personal statements to the court, and notifying the date on which the tariff will be set.
	This is clearly highly sensitive work, and it has been ongoing for several months. Victim liaison officers work with victims' families to enable their views to be represented. This will often include several visits and involve many family members as they seek to obtain information, and try as best they can to put into words the impact of the death of a family member. Families will have strong views about the sentences that offenders should receive, but it is clear that those views alone cannot dictate the length of sentence that an offender will receive. We should also remember that some families will not wish to express their views, and it is important that we respect their right not to engage in the process, if that is what they choose.
	The process for considering all applications and referrals in lifer cases is a matter for the High Court. There is some frustration at the fact that full implementation of the procedures has been delayed. That is the result of judicial challenges from a number of lifers concerning the relevant provisions in the 2003 Act, the most notable factor being the absence of an automatic right to an oral hearing. I am pleased to confirm that things have moved on and that the High Court process, including all the arrangements for considering the victim's perspective, is expected to be fully operational in the new year.
	There is nothing that the criminal justice system can do to make up for sexual or violent offences, particularly those involving violent death. But the system that we have put in place attempts to treat victims and their families with dignity, and it offers them the opportunity to ensure that their important views are heard. As my hon. Friend made clear, there has been considerable correspondence about the issue that she has drawn to the House's attention this evening: the tariff-setting process for the three youths who murdered Michael Moss. As that correspondence makes clear, responsibility for deciding tariffs for murderers aged under 18 was taken on by the Lord Chief Justice, following the European Court of Human Rights decision in the cases of Thompson and Venables in December 1999. That happened in advance of the enactment of legislation to transfer responsibility for setting tariffs from Ministers to trial judges.
	Michael's murderers were convicted on 26 July 2000, so they fell to having their tariffs decided by the Lord Chief Justice. They were among the last to be convicted before the new legislation came into effect on 30 November 2000, so they were behind a queue of 130 or more cases that needed consideration. The way in which the Lord Chief Justice set about this task was entirely a matter for him. He decided to seek the views of victims' families, through the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Where families chose to make statements, they would have been informed that those views would be disclosed to the prisoners concerned for any comments, before being submitted—along with all other relevant material—to the Lord Chief Justice for a decision. I can confirm that the Prison Service played no part in obtaining the views of the families in any of these cases.
	My hon. Friend asked a number of specific questions, including why her constituent's views were dismissed by the Lord Chief Justice. Clearly, I am not in a position to make a judgment about the way in which the Lord Chief Justice handled this particular case, but the arrangements for setting tariffs in those transitional cases pending the new legislation were entirely a matter for him. He decided to seek the views of victims' families in all such cases so that he could be aware of how they had been affected. I am sure that he did not intend to be offensive in any way when he made it clear that the decision on the length of tariff was ultimately a matter for the judiciary. However, in the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I intend to write to the Lord Chief Justice asking him to clarify for her and for her constituent—and indeed, for me as the Minister—precisely what he did mean.
	I can understand that Mrs. Moss is extremely upset about everything that has happened in this tragic case. Clearly, she deserves our deepest sympathy but, as I have said, the arrangements for dealing with those cases were explained in detail in correspondence with my hon. Friend and Mrs. Moss, and were decided and operated by the Lord Chief Justice. My hon. Friend asked why Mrs. Moss's permission was not sought for releasing her submission. My understanding is that, as part of the arrangements put in place by the Lord Chief Justice, families were told that their statements would be disclosed to the offenders concerned, so there was a risk that they might be made public. In addition—this is an important point—the Lord Chief Justice took the view that decisions that were effectively sentencing decisions on the most serious offences should be made publicly available. Disclosure of any material from individual statements was a matter for the Lord Chief Justice.
	The location and progress of prisoners is not normally disclosable, but again, the Lord Chief Justice clearly felt that it was necessary to give some details of progress to explain to the detainees, the families concerned and the public the reasons for reaching his decisions. As for any question of delay, it is clear that the Lord Chief Justice had a very large number of cases to consider personally. The offenders in this case were among the last to be convicted before the law was changed to transfer responsibility for tariff setting from Ministers to trial judges. No doubt, that was one reason for the delay. The appeal against conviction by one of the offenders, which was not disposed of until July 2002, would have been another reason why the decision was not made earlier.
	In conclusion, it is clear that Mrs. Moss has been through a terrible ordeal. I am certainly sorry if the new procedures put in place as part of the transitional arrangements led to confusion or misunderstanding. The procedures now in place, which are operated by the national probation service, ensure that all victims of crime are fully informed and fully engaged, and have choice about the amount of information that they receive and the representations that they can make about offenders, particularly at the point of release from prison. I hope that my remarks have clarified some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend, but I would, of course, be happy to correspond with her or discuss the case further. If there is anything more that I can do to try to help clarify the decision-making process on the setting of the tariffs for the three men who were responsible for Michael Moss's murder, I shall be only too pleased to do so.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eight o'clock.